You are here: / / PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITS RECOUPMENT OF OVERPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT.

PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITS RECOUPMENT OF OVERPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT.

The Second Department noted that public policy prohibited the recoupment of overpayment of child support by reducing future child support payments. However a commensurate reduction of future payments of educational expenses was okay:

“There is strong public policy in this state, which the [Child Support Standards Act] did not alter, against restitution or recoupment of the overpayment of child support” … . “The reason for this policy is that . . . child support payments are deemed to have been devoted to that purpose, and no funds exist from which one may recoup moneys so expended’ if the award is thereafter reversed or modified” … . Thus, recoupment of child support payments is only appropriate under “limited circumstances” … . * * *

However, “[w]hile child support overpayments may not be recovered by reducing future support payments, public policy does not forbid offsetting add-on expenses against an overpayment'” … . Thus, although the overpayments may not be applied to the father’s child support obligation, he may use the overpayments to offset his share of the add-on expenses, such as the educational expenses … . Matter of McGovern v McGovern, 2017 NY Slip Op 01862. 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITS RECOUPMENT OF OVERPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT)/CHILD SUPPORT (PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITS RECOUPMENT OF OVERPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT)

You might also like
IN THIS RESENTENCING PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT SINCE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED IN 1998-99 AND SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AN UPDATED PRESENTENCE REPORT WHICH INCLUDED AN INTERVIEW WITH DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
CHILD WAS ENTITLED TO A FINDING THAT REUNIFICATION WITH HIS MOTHER IN EL SALVADOR WAS NOT VIABLE DUE TO PARENTAL NEGLECT (SECOND DEPT).
CPLR 5239 Is the Proper Vehicle for Vacation of an Execution—Here Defendant’s Brother Brought a CPLR 5239 Proceeding to Vacate an Execution Against the Brother’s Property Which Purported to Relate to a Debt Owed by Defendant—The Execution Was Vacated Based Upon the Brother’s Proof of Ownership
Village Ordinance Prohibiting Crematory Not Preempted by State Law Under Either Express or Conflict Preemption Criteria
Requirements for Motion to Dismiss on Documentary Evidence
UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE SENTENCE FOR SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE REDUCED.
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MURDER CASE; THE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE MUST BE DISMISSED AS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF MURDER (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT MAKE SUFFICIENT EFFORTS TO PERSONALLY DELIVER THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE; COMPLAINT DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOUNCER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT... APPELLANT’S LATE APPEARANCE FOR A HEARING DID NOT JUSTIFY A DEFAULT F...