You are here: / / WHEN PARENTS HAVE EQUAL PARENTING TIME, THE PARENT WITH THE HIGHER INCOME...

WHEN PARENTS HAVE EQUAL PARENTING TIME, THE PARENT WITH THE HIGHER INCOME SHOULD BE DEEMED THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT FOR CHILD SUPPORT PURPOSES.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that mother, who had a substantially higher income than father, should be deemed the noncustodial parent because mother and father had equal parenting time. Therefore, father was entitled to child support from mother:

The “custodial parent” within the meaning of the Child Support Standards Act is the parent who has physical custody of the child for the majority of the time … . Where neither parent has the child for a majority of the time, the parent with the higher income, who bears the greater share of the child support obligation, should be deemed the noncustodial parent for the purposes of child support … . Matter of Conway v Gartmond, 2016 NY Slip Op 07319, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

FAMILY LAW (WHEN PARENTS HAVE EQUAL PARENTING TIME, THE PARENT WITH THE HIGHER INCOME SHOULD BE DEEMED THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT FOR CHILD SUPPORT PURPOSES)/CHILD SUPPORT (WHEN PARENTS HAVE EQUAL PARENTING TIME, THE PARENT WITH THE HIGHER INCOME SHOULD BE DEEMED THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT FOR CHILD SUPPORT PURPOSES)/NONCUSTODIAL PARENT (WHEN PARENTS HAVE EQUAL PARENTING TIME, THE PARENT WITH THE HIGHER INCOME SHOULD BE DEEMED THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT FOR CHILD SUPPORT PURPOSES)

You might also like
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE WITHOUT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
A PARTY NEED NOT MAKE A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT TO BE ENTITLED TO A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW BY AN APPELLATE COURT; THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER NEGLIGENT, BUT FINDING THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, AS WELL AS THE NOTICE REQUIRMENTS SPELLED OUT IN THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH OPEN TRAPDOOR IN LEASED PREMISES, DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, NO BASIS FOR LIABILITY OF BUILDING OWNER.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE NO LONGER APPLIES TO ANY ACTIONS OTHER THAN THOSE STEMMING FROM ATHLETIC AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE IT TOOK ACTION TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (c) (SECOND 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO... COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BROKER INDIVIDUALLY FOR NEGLIGENT...