You are here: / / FATHER’S NONVOLUNTARY UNION DUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED FROM HIS...

FATHER’S NONVOLUNTARY UNION DUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED FROM HIS INCOME FOR CALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined father’s nonvoluntary union dues should have been deducted from his income for the calculation of child support:

Although no deduction from income for union dues is specifically mandated by the Family Court Act, there is an allowable deduction for “unreimbursed employee business expenses except to the extent said expenses reduce personal expenditures” (Family Ct Act § 413[1][b][5][vii][A]). Nonvoluntary union dues may be deducted under this category … . “However, such expenses are properly deducted from parental income in calculating child support obligations only when proven, usually by tax returns accompanied by records and receipts” … .

At the hearing, counsel for the mother consented to the deduction of the father’s nonvoluntary union dues from the father’s income for the purposes of calculating his child support and related financial obligations. Thus, the Family Court should have granted the father’s objection to so much of the Support Magistrate’s order as failed to deduct the father’s nonvoluntary union dues from his income in calculating his child support and related financial obligations. Matter of Julien v Ware, 2020 NY Slip Op 00414, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

You might also like
TAKING TIMELY STEPS TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT IN FORECLOSURE ACTION SUFFICIENT TO AVOID DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AS ABANDONED.
MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
Family Court Should Have Determined Child Eligible to Apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
ALTHOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT OPPOSED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITS RECOUPMENT OF OVERPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT.
COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).
Shareholder Should Not Have Been Awarded Damages Individually Re: a Derivative Cause of Action
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS; DEFENDANT AVERRED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLEA (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 HOSPITAL MAY BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR TREATMENT PROVIDED... THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CREDITED BOTH EXPERTS,...