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
COURT’S ERRORS IN DEALING WITH NOTES FROM THE JURY, INCLUDING SUBSTITUTING THE WORD ‘INITIALLY’ FOR ‘INTENTIONALLY,’ REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).
WHEN A PRIOR MOTION HAS BEEN DENIED ON PROCEDURAL GOUNDS “WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEW,” THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW THE PRIOR MOTION DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR PRESENTING NEW FACTS (SECOND DEPT).
Action Based Upon Misclassification of Property Must Be Brought Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR AS OPPOSED TO ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF THE AIR CONDITIONER WHEN HE WAS INJURED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMSISS THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED; HOWEVER THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMIISED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER REQUIRING THE COUNTY CLERK TO RECORD A MORTGAGE, THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH HAD ALLEGEDLY BEEN LOST; AN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT IS AN APPROPRIATE VEHICLE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS IN ADMISSIBLE FORM (SECOND DEPT).
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
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THEIR MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED ON THAT GROUND, THE DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY’S “LIMITED APPEARANCE” AT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PROVIDED THE COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER; THE MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO INCLUDE DEFENDANT IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS THE RESULT OF “WILFUL NEGLECT;” THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1523, DEFENDANT’S “WILFUL-NEGLECT” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN THIS REFORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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...