Baruch v. Blum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baruch v. Blum

301 A.D.2d 479, 753 N.Y.S.2d 371, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 708

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 479 (Baruch v. Blum) 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

Baruch v. Blum, 301 A.D.2d 479, 753 N.Y.S.2d 371, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about May 16, 2001, which, upon consideration of objections to the orders of the Hearing Examiner dated May 17, 2000 and February 13, 2001, made additional findings of fact based upon evidence previously admitted before the Hearing Examiner, calculated respondent’s support obligations under statutory guidelines utilizing respondent’s gross income, ordered respondent to pay to petitioner monthly support in the amount of $2,662.50, and set arrears at $45,262.50 minus any payments made by respondent under certain prior support orders, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this child support proceeding, the court had sufficient evidence to determine the needs of the child and made the proper statutory calculation of combined parental income utilizing the parties’ gross income as “reported in the most recent federal income tax return” (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [i]).

The court properly exercised its discretion with respect to imputation of income (see Family Court Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [iv]; Matter of Klein v Klein, 251 AD2d 733, 735) when it declined to impute income to petitioner based on unspecified aid allegedly received by her prior to the institution of temporary child support payments by respondent.

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about May 16, 2001, which, upon consideration of objections to the orders of the Hearing Examiner dated May 17, 2000 and February 13, 2001, made additional findings of fact based upon evidence previously admitted before the Hearing Examiner, calculated respondent’s support obligations under statutory guidelines utilizing respondent’s gross income, ordered respondent to pay to petitioner monthly support in the amount of $2,662.50, and set arrears at $45,262.50 minus any payments made by respondent under certain prior support orders, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this child support proceeding, the court had sufficient evidence to determine the needs of the child and made the proper statutory calculation of combined parental income utilizing the parties’ gross income as “reported in the most recent federal income tax return” (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [i]).

The court properly exercised its discretion with respect to imputation of income (see Family Court Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [iv]; Matter of Klein v Klein, 251 AD2d 733, 735) when it declined to impute income to petitioner based on unspecified aid allegedly received by her prior to the institution of temporary child support payments by respondent.

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 479, 753 N.Y.S.2d 371, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baruch-v-blum-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack