You are here: / / Separation and Modification Agreements Did Not Comply with the Child Support...
,

Separation and Modification Agreements Did Not Comply with the Child Support Standards Act

The Third Department determined the parties’ separation and modification agreements did not comply with the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA).  The court explained the flaws:

If an agreement or stipulation entered into between the parties “deviates from the basic child support obligation, the agreement or stipulation must specify the amount that such basic child support obligation would have been and the reason or reasons that such agreement or stipulation does not provide for payment of that amount. Such provision may not be waived by either party or counsel” (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [h]…).

Here, the original separation and settlement agreement indicated that the parties had been advised of the provisions of the CSSA and that the amount of child support calculated in compliance therewith would be presumptively valid; the agreement further set forth the applicable statutory percentage for three children (29%) and the parties’ respective incomes and indicated that the husband’s child support obligation would be adjusted upon the cessation of the agreed-upon maintenance payments (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [vii] [C]). The agreement did not, however, indicate what the presumptive amount of child support would be, nor did it set forth the reasons for deviating therefrom. Similar deficiencies exist with respect to the provisions governing the parties’ pro rata share of childcare and medical expenses and, to our analysis, none of the foregoing deficiencies was cured by the subsequent modification agreement. Although the modification agreement acknowledged a departure from the presumptive pro rata share of each party’s childcare expenses and purported to explain the basis for the deviation therefrom, the agreement was silent as to what the presumptive pro rata percentages would be under the CSSA and failed to set forth the income and other financial data supporting the basis for such deviation. Malone v Malone, 2014 NY Slip Op 08281, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARKS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HER GUILTY PLEA CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRING THE ASSIGNMENT OF NEW COUNSEL; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PROVED HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND WHICH REFUSED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OBLIGATED TO PAY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDS (THIRD DEPT).
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, EVIDENCE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SEE THE CAR HE COLLIDED WITH AND FAILED TO TIMELY BRAKE IS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FOR A CRIMINALLLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION; THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS PRESERVED BY A MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE AND RULED ON AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S CASE; THE “LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT” VERSUS “AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE” STANDARDS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH INJURY IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT ON THE WAY TO WORK IS USUALLY NOT COVERED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, HERE THE “SPECIAL ERRAND” EXCEPTION APPLIED BECAUSE CLAIMANT, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS ENGAGED IN AN INVESTIGATION AND ON HIS WAY TO PICK UP A POLICE VEHICLE WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED (THIRD DEPT).
BREACH OF CONTRACT COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR PROPERLY DECIDED IN HOMEOWNERS’ FAVOR; THE CONTRACT DID NOT COMPLY WITH GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 771(1)(b) AND THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE WAS DEFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).
MOTION TO PURGE THE CONTEMPT ORDER REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF SOLID WASTE THAT HAD BEEN DUMPED ON A FIELD BY DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE INCARCERATED DEFENDANT SHOULD BE RELEASED (THIRD DEPT).
EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE JURY’S FINDING PLAINTIFF’S HEAD INJURY WAS A SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF INSURANCE LAW 5102, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
SUPREME COURT ADDRESSED THE MERITS OF THE ACTION WITHOUT DISCOVERY AND TRIAL; THE COURT SHOULD ONLY HAVE DECIDED WHETHER PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MATTER REMITTED FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD 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

Because Defendant Was Negligent As a Matter of Law (Violation of Vehicle and... Declaratory Judgment Action Was Actually Seeking to Open a Default Judgment...