Matter of Napoli v. Koller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Napoli v. Koller

140 A.D.3d 1070, 34 N.Y.S.3d 488

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

DecidedJune 22, 2016

Docket2015-05136

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 1070 (Matter of Napoli v. Koller) 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

Matter of Napoli v. Koller, 140 A.D.3d 1070, 34 N.Y.S.3d 488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*1071 Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Joseph A. Egitto, J.), dated May 14, 2015. The order denied the father’s objections to an order of that court (Jeanne M. Patsalos, S.M.), dated February 18, 2015, which, after a hearing, imputed income to him in the amount of $46,609.68 for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order dated May 14, 2015, is affirmed, with costs.

A support magistrate need not rely upon a party’s account of his or her own finances, but may impute income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated earning potential (see Matter of Rohme v Burns, 92 AD3d 946, 947 [2012]; Matter of Strella v Ferro, 42 AD3d 544, 546 [2007]). The support magistrate may impute income to a party based on his or her employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or “money, goods, or services provided by relatives and friends” (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [iv]; see Matter of Funaro v Kudrick, 128 AD3d 695 [2015]; Baumgardner v Baumgardner, 98 AD3d 929, 930-931 [2012]). A support magistrate “is afforded considerable discretion in determining whether to impute income to a parent” (Matter of Julianska v Majewski, 78 AD3d 1182, 1183 [2010]), and we accord deference to a support magistrate’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Kameneva v Hughes, 138 AD3d 854 [2016]; Matter of Rubenstein v Rubenstein, 114 AD3d 798 [2014]; Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v Yang, 89 AD3d 946 [2011]).

Here, the Support Magistrate properly imputed income to the father based upon his prior income, his training, his choice to pursue only part-time employment, and his current living arrangement, in which he did not pay rent (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [iv]; see Matter of Funaro v Kudrick, 128 AD3d 695 [2015]; Matter of Rohme v Burns, 92 AD3d at 947; Matter of Strella v Ferro, 42 AD3d at 546). The father’s remaining contention is without merit. Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s findings.

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

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

*1071 Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Joseph A. Egitto, J.), dated May 14, 2015. The order denied the father’s objections to an order of that court (Jeanne M. Patsalos, S.M.), dated February 18, 2015, which, after a hearing, imputed income to him in the amount of $46,609.68 for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order dated May 14, 2015, is affirmed, with costs.

A support magistrate need not rely upon a party’s account of his or her own finances, but may impute income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated earning potential (see Matter of Rohme v Burns, 92 AD3d 946, 947 [2012]; Matter of Strella v Ferro, 42 AD3d 544, 546 [2007]). The support magistrate may impute income to a party based on his or her employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or “money, goods, or services provided by relatives and friends” (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [iv]; see Matter of Funaro v Kudrick, 128 AD3d 695 [2015]; Baumgardner v Baumgardner, 98 AD3d 929, 930-931 [2012]). A support magistrate “is afforded considerable discretion in determining whether to impute income to a parent” (Matter of Julianska v Majewski, 78 AD3d 1182, 1183 [2010]), and we accord deference to a support magistrate’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Kameneva v Hughes, 138 AD3d 854 [2016]; Matter of Rubenstein v Rubenstein, 114 AD3d 798 [2014]; Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v Yang, 89 AD3d 946 [2011]).

Here, the Support Magistrate properly imputed income to the father based upon his prior income, his training, his choice to pursue only part-time employment, and his current living arrangement, in which he did not pay rent (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [iv]; see Matter of Funaro v Kudrick, 128 AD3d 695 [2015]; Matter of Rohme v Burns, 92 AD3d at 947; Matter of Strella v Ferro, 42 AD3d at 546). The father’s remaining contention is without merit. Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s findings.

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 1070, 34 N.Y.S.3d 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-napoli-v-koller-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack