You are here: / / THE PARENTS’ INCOME WAS NOT PROPERLY CALCULATED FOR CHILD-SUPPORT...
,

THE PARENTS’ INCOME WAS NOT PROPERLY CALCULATED FOR CHILD-SUPPORT PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the parents’ income was not properly calculated for child-support purposes:

The Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter CSSA) “sets forth a formula for calculating child support by applying a designated statutory percentage, based upon the number of children to be supported, to combined parental income up to the statutory cap that is in effect at the time of the judgment … . …

A calculation of “the basic child support obligation for the children, . . . 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” … . “[A] court has broad discretion to impute income when determining the amount of child support, and is not bound by the parties’ representations of their finances”… . The court may impute income to a party “based on the [party’s] employment history, future earning capacity, educational background” … , “resources available to the party, including ‘money, goods, or services provided by relatives and friends'” … , or “when it is shown that the marital lifestyle was such that, under the circumstances, there [is] a basis for the court to conclude that the [party’s] actual income and financial resources were greater than what he or she reported on his or her tax return[ ]” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improperly determined the parties’ income by averaging their reported earnings over the preceding four years … . Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, where the plaintiff is employed by his family and his tax returns show substantial downward fluctuations in income, the court should have conducted an analysis as to whether to impute income to the plaintiff. Koutsouras v Mitsos-Koutsouras, 2021 NY Slip Op 05328, Second Dept 10-7-21

 

You might also like
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, STEPS WHICH DO NOT HAVE UNIFORM RISER HEIGHTS COULD CONSTITUTE A DANGEROUS CONDITION UNDER COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE PRINCIPLES, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO WHETHER A BUILDING CODE WAS VIOLATED; BOTH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE SUBLESSEE COULD BE LIABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS THE PRODUCT OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFUSION, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO “REINSTATE” A PRIOR VERDICT THAT HAD NOT BEEN REPORTED TO THE JUDGE.
HEARSAY STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION NOT ADMISSIBLE AS ADMISSIONS OR BUSINESS RECORDS; THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE PROHIBITED TESTIMONY ABOUT THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO PERMISSIVE ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION BASED UPON THE PEOPLE’S LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
Alleged Misrepresentations Were Not Collateral or Extraneous to the Contract—Fraud Cause of Action Will Not Lie
IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CASE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS UNSECURED AND SHIFTED; DEFENDANT ALLEGED PLAINTIFF TOLD HIS SUPERVISOR HE LOST HIS BALANCE AND JUMPED FROM THE LADDER, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
“Undue Influence” and “Fraud” Criteria Explained Re: Objections to Probate of a Will
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S AFFIANT DID NOT HAVE FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE MAILING PRACTICES OF THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO THE DEFENDANT; JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE REVERSED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY SENT 75 LETTERS TO HARASS DEFENDANTS; SANCTIONS FOR... AN AFFIDAVIT WITH A PARTY STATEMENT AND A NON-PARTY AFFIDAVIT WHICH WERE NOT...