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
PLAINTIFF SUED THE DEVELOPER OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO PLAINTIFF’S BUILDING ALLEGING EXCAVATION WORK CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S BUILDING TO SETTLE AND LEAN; THE CITY ISSUED A STOP-WORK ORDER STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT-DEVELOPER THEN COUNTERCLAIMED ALLEGING PLAINTIFF WAS NEGLIGENT IN NOT MAINTAINING PLAINTIFF’S BUILDING SUCH THAT THE EXCAVATION WORK WOULD NOT DAMAGE IT, RESULTING IN THE STOP-WORK ORDER AND CAUSING THE DEVELOPER PURELY ECONOMIC LOSS OF AT LEAST $16 MILLION; SUPREME COURT LET THE COUNTERCLAIM STAND BUT THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DISMISSED IT; PLAINTIFF DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO THE DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PURELY ECONOMIC DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).
RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMS RENDERED THE NO-FAULT INSURANCE POLICY VOID AB INITIO (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW, SUFFICIENTLY PLED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT BANK GIVING RISE TO A DUTY TO ENFORCE ITS ANTI-FRAUD PROCEDURES; PLAINTIFF WIRED $300,000 TO AN ACCOUNT WHICH HAD BEEN SET UP TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
Testimony that Bus Company Held to Higher Standard Required Reversal
DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT ON DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION AFTER NEW COUNSEL IS ASSIGNED (FIRST DEPT).
LEASE WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO THWART (NYC) RENT CONTROL AND WAS THEREFORE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THAT NEW YORK’S PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PROPERTY OWNERS IN “MAJORITY-MINORITY” NEIGHBORHOODS; COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS-PARENTS’ CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LOSS OF THEIR INJURED DAUGHTER’S SERVICES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE PARENTS DEMONSTRATED ONLY THAT THEIR DAUGHTER PERFORMED SERVICES IN HER EMPLOYMENT AT THE COMPANIES OWNED BY THE PARENTS (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...