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
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, PRIMA FACIE, THE UNEVEN SEWER GRATE WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT; THEREFORE THE BURDEN OF PROOF NEVER SHIFTED TO THE PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
No “Civil Conspiracy” Tort in New York; However Conspiracy-Theory Can Link Participants to Underlying Substantive Tort
IN THIS FORECLOSURE DEFICIENCY-JUDGMENT CASE, THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERABLY HIGHER THAN THE LIQUIDATION VALUE USED BY THE COURT TO CALCULATE THE DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A PROTRUDING NAIL IN A BASEMENT STAIRWAY WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE STAIRWAY WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED (SECOND DEPT).
CITY ACQUIRED TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S HAVING CONTINUOUSLY PAID THE PROPERTY TAXES (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE JUDGE PRECLUDED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT ABOUT WHETHER THE OTHER DOCTORS WHO CONSULTED ON PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT DEPARTED FROM ACCEPTED PRACTICE BY FAILING TO DO FURTHER DIAGNOSTIC TESTING; IF SO, FAULT WOULD BE SHARED PURSUANT TO CPLR 1601 (SECOND DEPT).
IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAN BE TOLLED UNDER THE “CONTINUING WRONG” DOCTRINE; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS ABUSED BY OTHER STUDENTS BEGINNING IN OCTOBER 2017; THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED IN FEBRUARY 2018 (SECOND DEPT). ​
Motion to Set Aside a Verdict Properly Denied When Based Upon an Error Not Preserved by Objection

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...