Aregano v. Aregano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aregano v. Aregano

289 A.D.2d 1081, 735 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12791

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 1081 (Aregano v. Aregano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aregano v. Aregano, 289 A.D.2d 1081, 735 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The parties were married in 1985 and five children were born of the marriage. In April 1999 plaintiff commenced a divorce action, and defendant counterclaimed for a divorce on the ground of abandonment. The parties thereafter stipulated to a divorce based on the counterclaim. In October 1999 the parties entered into a separation agreement in which the parties agreed that “[t]he Wife will accept $0.00 as child support at this time.” The judgment of divorce nevertheless ordered plaintiff to pay $25 per month as support for the parties’ four unemancipated children retroactive to April 1999.

Plaintiff is correct that a state is prohibited from enacting child support guidelines that impose “an irrebuttable mandatory minimum” amount of child support (Matter of Rose v Moody, 83 NY2d 65, 69, cert denied sub nom. Attorney Gen. of N. Y. v Moody, 511 US 1084; see, 42 USC § 667 [b] [2]). Here, however, Supreme Court did not order child support in the amount of $25 as the mandatory minimum pursuant to subdivision (1) (g) of Family Court Act § 413 (cf., Matter of Deborah A. D. v David E. C., 217 AD2d 1005, 1005-1006). Rather, the court ordered that amount pursuant to subdivision (1) (a) of Family Court Act § 413, which provides that “the parents of a child under the age of twenty-one years are chargeable with the support of such child and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, shall be required to pay for child support a fair and reasonable sum as the court may determine [emphasis added].” “[A] parent’s child support obligation is not necessarily determined by his or her existing financial situation but, rather, by his or her ability to provide support” (Matter of Lutsic v Lutsic, 245 AD2d 637, 638). Consequently, the court [1082]*1082did. not abuse its discretion in ordering plaintiff to pay child support in the amount of $25 per month (see, Parry v Parry, 93 AD2d 989, 990). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Paris, J. — Matrimonial.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The parties were married in 1985 and five children were born of the marriage. In April 1999 plaintiff commenced a divorce action, and defendant counterclaimed for a divorce on the ground of abandonment. The parties thereafter stipulated to a divorce based on the counterclaim. In October 1999 the parties entered into a separation agreement in which the parties agreed that “[t]he Wife will accept $0.00 as child support at this time.” The judgment of divorce nevertheless ordered plaintiff to pay $25 per month as support for the parties’ four unemancipated children retroactive to April 1999.

Plaintiff is correct that a state is prohibited from enacting child support guidelines that impose “an irrebuttable mandatory minimum” amount of child support (Matter of Rose v Moody, 83 NY2d 65, 69, cert denied sub nom. Attorney Gen. of N. Y. v Moody, 511 US 1084; see, 42 USC § 667 [b] [2]). Here, however, Supreme Court did not order child support in the amount of $25 as the mandatory minimum pursuant to subdivision (1) (g) of Family Court Act § 413 (cf., Matter of Deborah A. D. v David E. C., 217 AD2d 1005, 1005-1006). Rather, the court ordered that amount pursuant to subdivision (1) (a) of Family Court Act § 413, which provides that “the parents of a child under the age of twenty-one years are chargeable with the support of such child and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, shall be required to pay for child support a fair and reasonable sum as the court may determine [emphasis added].” “[A] parent’s child support obligation is not necessarily determined by his or her existing financial situation but, rather, by his or her ability to provide support” (Matter of Lutsic v Lutsic, 245 AD2d 637, 638). Consequently, the court [1082]*1082did. not abuse its discretion in ordering plaintiff to pay child support in the amount of $25 per month (see, Parry v Parry, 93 AD2d 989, 990). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Paris, J. — Matrimonial.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 1081, 735 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aregano-v-aregano-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack