You are here: / / THE CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THE DIVORCE...
,

THE CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THE DIVORCE ACTION VIOLATED THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT AND MUST BE VACATED; THE VACATUR SHOULD HAVE EXTENDED BACK TO THE DATE OF THE STIPULATION, NOT MERELY TO THE DATE OF THE RELATED MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this action on the child support provisions of a stipulation of settlement in a divorce action, determined the child support provisions violated the Child Support Standards Act and the required vacatur should extend back to the date of the stipulation:

The Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][h]; hereinafter CSSA) mandates vacatur of original child support stipulations when they fail to comply with CSSA guidelines. Here … the Supreme Court found that the parties’ failure to strictly comply with the CSSA with regard to the deviation from the statutory support obligations vitiated the child support provision of the stipulation of settlement with regard to apportionment of unreimbursed medical costs. … [T]he court improperly determined that the reimbursement of the medical costs and child care expenses was retroactive only to the filing date of the motion, relying on Luisi v Luisi (6 AD3d 398). However, in Luisi, this Court held that it was improper to award child support arrears retroactive to the date of a stipulation of settlement because the party seeking such recalculation only did so by motion in the matrimonial action rather than by plenary action … . Here, the defendant did properly commence a plenary action to vacate those provisions of the stipulation of settlement which pertained to the calculation of the medical costs and child care expenses and, upon vacatur, to recalculate the amounts owed. … Thus, the court should have granted those branches of the defendant’s motion which sought a recalculation of the arrears owed retroactive to the date of the stipulation of settlement … . Martelloni v Martelloni, 2020 NY Slip Op 05197, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS A CO-PILOT OF A HELICOPTER USED TO PROVIDE AN AERIAL PLATFORM FOR WORK ON POWER LINES; THE HELICOPTER STRUCK A POWER LINE AND PLAINTIFF JUMPED FROM THE HELICOPTER FROM A HEIGHT OF 75 FEET; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) STRICT LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT (FAA); THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; RATHER THE FEDERAL STANDARD OF CARE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CO-DEFENDANT WAS SO INFORMED IN DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, DEFENDANT WAS NOT DIRECTLY INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BY THE JUDGE; MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR PETITIONER MOTHER TO SEEK SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) FOR HER SON (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
DESPITE THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED A DECISION TO GO TO TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIONALE BECAUSE OF HIS FAMILY OBLIGATIONS; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS; DEFENDANT ALLEGED HIS ATTORNEY MISADVISED HIM ON THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE BY THE TRIAL JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; ISSUE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (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

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THE PROVISION OF AN “AGREEMENT... PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY FELL SIX FEET FROM A SCAFFOLD WITHOUT GUARD RAILS; PLAINTIFF’S...