Graves v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Graves v. Smith

284 A.D.2d 332, 725 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5644

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

DecidedJune 4, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 332 (Graves v. Smith) 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

Graves v. Smith, 284 A.D.2d 332, 725 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated June 1, 2000, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Clarke, H.E.), entered January 11, 2000, which, after a hearing, increased his child support obligation from a bi-weekly payment of $142 to a monthly payment of $578.84.

Ordered that the order dated June 1, 2000, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the issue of child support in accordance herewith.

The court erred in basing the amount of the child support obligation on the child’s needs. There is no basis for the court’s departure from the basic child support obligation as stated in Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (see, Murphy-Artale v [333]*333Artale, 219 AD2d 587). Where the father’s 1998 reported income on his tax return was found to be suspect, the court was not bound by the actual reported income in applying the basic child support obligation, and instead could have used his actual earning capacity or imputed an amount onto the gross income reported in his tax return (see, Matter of Scomello v Scomello, 260 AD2d 483; Matter of Diamond v Diamond, 254 AD2d 288; Murphy-Artale v Artale, supra). Krausman, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated June 1, 2000, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Clarke, H.E.), entered January 11, 2000, which, after a hearing, increased his child support obligation from a bi-weekly payment of $142 to a monthly payment of $578.84.

Ordered that the order dated June 1, 2000, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the issue of child support in accordance herewith.

The court erred in basing the amount of the child support obligation on the child’s needs. There is no basis for the court’s departure from the basic child support obligation as stated in Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (see, Murphy-Artale v [333]*333Artale, 219 AD2d 587). Where the father’s 1998 reported income on his tax return was found to be suspect, the court was not bound by the actual reported income in applying the basic child support obligation, and instead could have used his actual earning capacity or imputed an amount onto the gross income reported in his tax return (see, Matter of Scomello v Scomello, 260 AD2d 483; Matter of Diamond v Diamond, 254 AD2d 288; Murphy-Artale v Artale, supra). Krausman, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 332, 725 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graves-v-smith-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack