Boyette v. Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boyette v. Wilson

291 A.D.2d 908, 738 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1187

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 908 (Boyette v. Wilson) 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

Boyette v. Wilson, 291 A.D.2d 908, 738 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Szczur, J.), entered August 22, 2000, which denied petitioner’s objection to that part of the order of the Hearing Examiner determining respondent’s child support obligation.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting petitioner’s objection and vacating that, part of the order of the Hearing Examiner determining respondent’s child support obligation and as modified the order is affirmed without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: We agree with petitioner that Family Court erred in failing to consider that portion of respondent’s personal injury award consisting of lump-sum payments at five-year intervals, including the initial lump-sum payment of $500,000, in determining respondent’s child support obligation (see, Matter of Ogborn v Hilts, 262 AD2d 857, 859; Matter of Grennier v Breason, 256 AD2d 812). Contrary to respondent’s contention, neither Family Court Act § 413 (1) (e) nor section 413 (1) (b) (5) precludes the court from considering that source of income. We note in addition that other nonrecurring lump sums have been [909]*909considered in determining child support (see, Matter of Cody v Evans-Cody, 291 AD2d 27; Matter of Duguay v Paoletti, 279 AD2d 767, 768-769; Matter of Bryant v Bryant, 235 AD2d 116, 119). We therefore modify the order by granting petitioner’s objection and vacating that part of the order of the Hearing Examiner determining respondent’s child support obligation and remit the matter to Family Court, Erie County, to determine respondent’s child support obligation in accordance with our decision herein. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hayes, Scudder and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Szczur, J.), entered August 22, 2000, which denied petitioner’s objection to that part of the order of the Hearing Examiner determining respondent’s child support obligation.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting petitioner’s objection and vacating that, part of the order of the Hearing Examiner determining respondent’s child support obligation and as modified the order is affirmed without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: We agree with petitioner that Family Court erred in failing to consider that portion of respondent’s personal injury award consisting of lump-sum payments at five-year intervals, including the initial lump-sum payment of $500,000, in determining respondent’s child support obligation (see, Matter of Ogborn v Hilts, 262 AD2d 857, 859; Matter of Grennier v Breason, 256 AD2d 812). Contrary to respondent’s contention, neither Family Court Act § 413 (1) (e) nor section 413 (1) (b) (5) precludes the court from considering that source of income. We note in addition that other nonrecurring lump sums have been [909]*909considered in determining child support (see, Matter of Cody v Evans-Cody, 291 AD2d 27; Matter of Duguay v Paoletti, 279 AD2d 767, 768-769; Matter of Bryant v Bryant, 235 AD2d 116, 119). We therefore modify the order by granting petitioner’s objection and vacating that part of the order of the Hearing Examiner determining respondent’s child support obligation and remit the matter to Family Court, Erie County, to determine respondent’s child support obligation in accordance with our decision herein. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hayes, Scudder and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 908, 738 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyette-v-wilson-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack