You are here: / / PROCEDURES MANDATED BY THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARD ACTS NOT FOLLOWED; SUPREME...

PROCEDURES MANDATED BY THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARD ACTS NOT FOLLOWED; SUPREME COURT’S ORDER MODIFIED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined Supreme Court did not follow the statutory requirements of the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) and modified Supreme Court’s order. Supreme Court directed plaintiff-father to pay 100% of private school tuition for the child, and further ordered that plaintiff-father pay 100% of the cost of extracurricular, weekend and summer activities for the child. The First Department determined, under the CSSA, the extracurricular, weekend and summer activities should have been factored into child support. The court further determined that, because father and mother never married and lived together for only four months, the discussions between mother and father about private school for the child were not a sufficient ground for ordering father to pay for private school. The private school and extracurricular weekend and summer activities portions of Supreme Court’s order were vacated. The court explained the procedural requirements of the CSSA as follows:

The CSSA first requires a calculation of child support amount (Domestic Relations Laws 240 [1-b] [b][3]). It then allows for the payment of certain categories of enumerated add on expenses, prorated according to the parents’ relative incomes. The add on expenses permitted are expressly stated within the statute, with their own specific standards and considerations justifying the making of such an award. The add on expenses expressly addressed in the CSSA are: (1) child care expenses when a custodial parent is working, looking for work and/or engaged in an educational or training program that will lead to employment (Family Court Act § 413[1][c][4]; Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][c][4],[6]); (2) health insurance and unreimbursed medical expenses (Family Court Act § 413[1][c][5]; Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][c][5]; and (3) educational expenses (Family Court Act § 413[1][c][7]; Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][7]). Not expressly delineated as add on expenses in the statute are summer, extra curricular and/or weekend activities. Basic child support, when calculated properly, is presumed to meet all the child’s basic needs. Thus, the expenses of leisure, extracurricular and enrichment activities, such as after school clubs, sporting activities, etc., are usually not awarded separately, but are encompassed within the basic child support award. That is not to say that a court cannot order a parent to pay for these expenses over and above basic child support. If a court does so, however, it is a deviation from the basic statutory formula and requires an analysis under the commonly referred to paragraph “f” factors. Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b][f] (Family Court Act § 413[1][f]) “[u]nless the court finds that the non-custodial parent[‘s] pro-rata share of the basic child support obligation is unjust or inappropriate, which finding shall be based upon consideration of [certain] factors” enumerated in the CSSA, the child support calculation under the statute is presumptively correct. There are 10 enumerated factors to consider before deviating. They include the financial resources of the parties and child, the health, needs and aptitude of the child; the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the household not been dissolved; tax consequences; nonmonetary contributions that a parent makes; educational needs of either parent; disparity in income of the parents; other child support obligation of the non-custodial parent; extraordinary expenses incurred in visitation and any other factor that the court finds relevant (Family Court Act § [1][f]; Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][f]). Although all the factors do not have to present, the court needs to articulate its reasons for making such a deviation from basic child support and relate those reasons to the statutory paragraph f factors … . Michael J.D. v Carolina E.P., 2016 NY Slip Op 01252, 1st Dept 2-18-16

FAMILY LAW (REQUIREMENTS OF CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT NOT MET BY SUPREME COURT, ORDER MODIFIED)/CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (REQUIREMENTS OF CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT NOT MET BY SUPREME COURT, ORDER MODIFIED)

You might also like
PAIN MANAGEMENT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/WRONGFUL DEATH CASE PROPERLY DENIED, THE DOCTOR PRESCRIBED OPIOIDS FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A DRUG ADDICT (FIRST DEPT).
The Fact that Plaintiff’s Testimony Was the Only Evidence of the Defect Which Caused Her to Fall (a Hole in a Worn Rubber Mat) Did Not Render the Evidence Insufficient to Support the Plaintiff’s Verdict
LONG-ARM JURISDICTION DID NOT REACH AN AUDITING FIRM IN THE UK AND CONVERSION CAUSES OF ACTION FAILED BECAUSE THE CONVERTED FUNDS WERE NOT IDENTIFIABLE AFTER THEY HAD BEEN INVESTED.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, ENTERED BY THE CLERK AT THE DIRECTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT AFTER REVERSAL, DOES NOT BRING UP TRIAL INTERLOCUTORY RULINGS FOR APPEAL.
HERE DISCLAIMERS WERE UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE ACTIVITY WHICH LED TO INJURY WAS NOT WITHIN THE OVERALL SCOPE OF THE POLICY-COVERAGE; HAD THE DISCLAIMERS BEEN BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION FROM COVERAGE, AS OPPOSED TO THE OVERALL SCOPE OF THE COVERAGE, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN INVALID AS UNTIMELY.
No Justification for Handcuffing Defendant/Handcuffing Constituted an Arrest Before Officer Had Probable Cause to Arrest
THE SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER COUNTS (FIRST DEPT).
JUDGE PROPERLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AWARDING $0 FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE VERDICT AS INCONSISTENT (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAMILY COURT APPLIED THE WRONG LAW RE: EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTED WHICH WOULD SUPPORT...