Badillo v. Badillo, 62 A.D.3d 635 (2nd Dept. 2009):  The plaintiff did not engage in sanctionable conduct by opposing the defendant's motion...Moreover, the Supreme Court did not follow the proper procedure for imposing a sanction, since it failed to specify in a written decision the conduct upon which the award was based, the reasons why it found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons the sanction was fixed in the sum indicated.

Iadanza v. Boeger, 58 A.D.3d 733 (2nd Dept. 2009):  The Family Court properly directed the mother to pay 20% of the college expenses of the parties' son...However, it was error to do so without directing that the mother's child support obligation be reduced by any amounts she contributed, or may contribute in the future, toward room and board during those periods when the son lived, or may live in the future, away from home while attending college.

Spillman v. Spillman, 40 A.D.3d 770 (2nd Dept. 2007): In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County, which, after a hearing, and upon finding that he violated an order of protection of the same court, directed him inter alia to stay away from his wife, and to observe certain conditions for a period of three years.  The record supports the Family Court’s determination that the husband violated the terms of a previously-issued order of protection by committing harassing acts against his wife.

Thomas v. Thomas, 820 N.Y.S.2d 316 (2nd Dept. 2006): The court erred in granting an Order of Protection where the acts alleged were not relatively contemporaneous.

People v. Wenz, 12 Misc. 3d, 134(a), 820 N.Y.S.2d 845 (2006): The testimony at trial was insufficient to establish that defendant was guilty of making an unsafe left turn or that he made a left turn without being able to do so with "reasonable safety".  The officer was speeding and his view was obscured.  Nor did the officer notice whether the defendant's vehicle had its headlights on or whether the left turn signal had been activated.  The evidence was also legally insufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of driving while impaired.  No field sobriety tests were administered at the scene and defendant's speech was later noted as normal.  The defendant remained in his lane of traffic and immediately pulled over after the officer activated the siren and lights of the patrol vehicle.  The evidence failed to establish that defendant lacked the physical and mental abilities one is expected to possess when operating a vehicle. Judgments reversed and fines remitted.

Bugdin v. Bugdin, 17 AD3d 585, 793 N.Y.S.2d 505 (2nd Dept 2005): Mother sought to enforce written Stipulation of Settlement which provided that the father’s child support obligation would be periodically calculated pursuant to Child Support Standards Act.  The Support Magistrate improperly required the mother to demonstrate the existence of a “change in circumstance” in order to have the father’s child support obligation changed.  Instead, the Support Magistrate should have recalculated the father’s child support obligation in accordance with the Child Support Standards Act.


Pozza v. Pozza, 260 A.D.2d 360, 687 N.Y.S.2d 711 (2nd Dept. 1999): Former husband was not entitled to downward modification of his maintenance obligation where former husband failed to demonstrate that continued payment would result in extreme hardship.

Disclaimer:  Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.