Darren F. v. Marie-Amina T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Darren F. v. Marie-Amina T.

58 A.D.3d 493, 872 N.Y.S.2d 92

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 493 (Darren F. v. Marie-Amina T.) 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

Darren F. v. Marie-Amina T., 58 A.D.3d 493, 872 N.Y.S.2d 92 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about April 28, 2008, which denied respondent Marie-Amina T.’s objection to a Magistrate’s final order of support that obligated her to pay continuing support for her two children in the amount of $194 per week, in addition to $15,630.86 in retroactive support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to rebut the presumption that the standard of support as calculated under Family Court Act § 413 (1) (c) was reasonable and appropriate (see Matter of Andre v Warren, [494]*494192 AD2d 491 [1993]). In a hearing where credibility was a crucial consideration, respondent was not forthright about— and presented insufficient evidence regarding—the amount of her gross income, thus authorizing the Magistrate to base the support obligation on the children’s needs, pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (k) (see Merchant v Hicks, 15 AD3d 266 [2005]).

Respondent’s unsubstantiated claim that her current employment income is insufficient to enable her to support herself and also meet her child-support obligation is unavailing. The record establishes that based on her education and background, respondent’s earning potential and capacity are more than adequate (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [v]; Matter of Richards v Bailey, 296 AD2d 412 [2002]; Polite v Polite, 127 AD2d 465, 467 [1987]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about April 28, 2008, which denied respondent Marie-Amina T.’s objection to a Magistrate’s final order of support that obligated her to pay continuing support for her two children in the amount of $194 per week, in addition to $15,630.86 in retroactive support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to rebut the presumption that the standard of support as calculated under Family Court Act § 413 (1) (c) was reasonable and appropriate (see Matter of Andre v Warren, [494]*494192 AD2d 491 [1993]). In a hearing where credibility was a crucial consideration, respondent was not forthright about— and presented insufficient evidence regarding—the amount of her gross income, thus authorizing the Magistrate to base the support obligation on the children’s needs, pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (k) (see Merchant v Hicks, 15 AD3d 266 [2005]).

Respondent’s unsubstantiated claim that her current employment income is insufficient to enable her to support herself and also meet her child-support obligation is unavailing. The record establishes that based on her education and background, respondent’s earning potential and capacity are more than adequate (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [v]; Matter of Richards v Bailey, 296 AD2d 412 [2002]; Polite v Polite, 127 AD2d 465, 467 [1987]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 493, 872 N.Y.S.2d 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darren-f-v-marie-amina-t-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack