You are here: / / SUPREME COURT DID NOT CONDUCT A HEARING OR FOLLOW THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS...
,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT CONDUCT A HEARING OR FOLLOW THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT FORMULA FOR CHILD SUPPORT CALCULATIONS; IN ADDITION THE COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE STRONG PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST RESTITUTION OR RECOUPMENT OF CHIILD SUPPORT ALREADY PAID; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court did not conduct a hearing, did not follow the child support formula of the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) and did not consider the public policy against recoupment or restitution of child support already paid. The matter was remitted for a hearing and a new determination:

… [T]he Supreme Court did not calculate the basic child support obligation for the children, which is done by (1) determining the combined parental income and (2) multiplying the amount of combined parental income up to the statutory cap by the appropriate child support percentage (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][c]). The court did not determine the combined parental income or identify the applicable statutory cap. It further failed to determine each parent’s pro rata share of the basic child support obligation based on his or her income in proportion to the combined parental income … . Rather, the court incorrectly determined the amount of child support owed to the custodial parent based solely on the noncustodial parent’s income multiplied by the appropriate child support percentage, which the court determined to be 25% of the plaintiff’s income. However, the appropriate basic child support figure for the parties’ two children was 25% of the combined parental income, as prorated between the parties in accordance with the statute (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][b][3][ii]). … [T]here is no indication that the court considered “[t]he financial resources of the custodial and non-custodial parent” or whether “the gross income of one parent is substantially less than the other parent’s gross income” … . Park v Park, 2021 NY Slip Op 02536, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

You might also like
BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE INVOLVING THREE CARS (SECOND DEPT).
THE J.H.O./REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY CPLR 3104 OR ANY ORDER ISSUED BY THE COURT TO CONSIDER AN ALLEGED DEFICIENCY IN THE AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS; THE ISSUE PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BELOW, THEREFORE IT MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; ORDER STRIKING THE COMPLAINT VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
THE “ABANDONMENT” EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER, WHO LIVES IN CALIFORNIA, SOUGHT MODIFICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CUSTODY ORDER; MOTHER, WHO LIVES IN NEW YORK, SOUGHT MODIFICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ORDER IN NEW YORK; FAMILY COURT CORRECTLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE CALIFORNIA COURT BUT DID NOT ALLOW THE PARTIES TO PRESENT FACTS AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE DISMISSING THE NEW YORK PETITION; FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Conviction Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing On the Ground It Was Untimely/The Motion Raised Legal Grounds for Relief (Evidence Withheld at Trial) and There Is No Time Limit for a Motion to Vacate a Conviction Pursuant to CPL 440.10
THE POLICE ACTED ILLEGALLY IN DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT’S SUBSEQUENT INDEPENDENT ACT OF RUNNING OVER THE POLICE OFFICER DISSIPATED THE ILLEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS CERTAIN TESTIMONY ABOUT THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE POLICE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
IN A COMPREHENSIVE OPINION WITH DETAILED DISCUSSIONS OF THE FELLOW OFFICER RULE, THE STOP OF A VEHICLE BASED ON AN OBSERVED TRAFFIC VIOLATION, THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, AND THE VALIDITY OF AN INVENTORY SEARCH, COUNTY COURT’S DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE COCAINE FOUND IN THE VEHICLE IS REVERSED OVER TWO CONCURRENCES AND A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (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

THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE APPLIES TO THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION... DEFENDANT’S PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE; PRESERVATION...