You are here: / / CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS PROPERLY AWARDED TO MOTHER, BUT THE AMOUNT SHOULD...

CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS PROPERLY AWARDED TO MOTHER, BUT THE AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED THROUGH THE HEARING DATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that, although child support arrears were properly awarded to petitioner (mother), the amount of the arrears should have been calculated through the date of the hearing:

By submitting evidence that respondent [father] was delinquent in his support payments … , petitioner established prima facie that respondent willfully violated his child support obligations. Respondent failed to rebut this prima facie showing by presenting evidence of his inability to pay … . He testified to a loss of income but failed to provide evidence of either his lost employment or his efforts to find new employment  … . Further, contrary to respondent’s contention, whether respondent eventually satisfied his arrears has no bearing on the court’s finding of willfulness …  , particularly in light of his previous violations of his support obligations. …

Petitioner correctly argues that child support arrears accrued through the date of the hearing on remand, and should be included in the award of arrears, as required by Family Court Act § 459 and in the children’s best interests . Therefore, we remand for recalculation of the amount in arrears … . Matter of Eve S.P. v Steven N.S., 2019 NY Slip Op 08130, First Dept 11-12-19

 

You might also like
UNDER THE FACTS, PRE-TRIAL REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE PROPERLY DENIED.
THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE A TESTIMONIAL HEARING BEFORE THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN FOR AN INCAPACITATED PERSON (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEVER THE TWO OFFENSES, WHICH OCCURRED ON DIFFERENT DATES AND WERE UNRELATED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON THE CONDITION OF THE HOME (FIRST DEPT),
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING UP AN EARTHEN RAMP WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY AN EXCAVATOR AND ROLLED DOWN THE RAMP; THERE WAS NO “SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL” SUCH THAT LABOR LAW 24O (1) WOULD APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
Proof of Janitorial Schedule Insufficient to Demonstrate Lack of Notice of Dangerous Condition
WHERE THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN AN ORDER OR A JUDGMENT AND THE DECISION UPON WHICH IT IS BASED, THE DECISION CONTROLS (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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD KNEW OF THE DOG’S PRESENCE IN THE BUILDING... DISCOVERY OF DEFENDANT’S SOURCE CODE, A TRADE SECRET, SHOULD HAVE BEEN...