Matter of Ripley v. Valencia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Ripley v. Valencia

136 A.D.3d 831, 24 N.Y.S.3d 527

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2016

Docket2015-01044

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 831 (Matter of Ripley v. Valencia) 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 Ripley v. Valencia, 136 A.D.3d 831, 24 N.Y.S.3d 527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Conrad D. Singer, J.), dated November 20, 2014. The order denied the father’s objections to so much of an order of support of that court (Kathleen Watson, S.M.), dated May 9, 2014, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the mother’s petition which was for child care expenses and awarded such expenses retroactive to September 18, 2013.

Ordered that the order dated November 20, 2014, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties have one child in common. The mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 for child support. In an order dated May 9, 2014, a Support Magistrate, after a hearing, granted that branch of the mother’s petition which was for child care expenses and awarded such expenses retroactive to September 18, 2013. In the order appealed from, the Family Court denied the father’s objections to so much of the support magistrate’s order as related to child care expenses. The father appeals.

“Where the custodial parent is working . . . and incurs child care expenses as a result thereof, the court shall determine reasonable child care expenses and such child care expenses, where incurred, shall be prorated in the same proportion as each parent’s income is to the combined parental income” (Family Ct Act §413 [1] [c] [4]).

Here, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order regarding the computa *832 tion of his pro rata share of the child care expenses incurred by the mother while she is working (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [4]; Matter of Chiulli v Storms, 50 AD3d 788 [2008]; Matter of Bibicoff v Orfanakis, 48 AD3d 680 [2008]; see also Matter of Lewis v Redhead, 5 AD3d 600 [2004]) and for payment of such child care expenses retroactive to the date of the filing of the child support petition {see Family Ct Act § 449 [2]; Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 89 AD2d 894 [1982]).

Chambers, J.P., Austin, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Conrad D. Singer, J.), dated November 20, 2014. The order denied the father’s objections to so much of an order of support of that court (Kathleen Watson, S.M.), dated May 9, 2014, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the mother’s petition which was for child care expenses and awarded such expenses retroactive to September 18, 2013.

Ordered that the order dated November 20, 2014, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties have one child in common. The mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 for child support. In an order dated May 9, 2014, a Support Magistrate, after a hearing, granted that branch of the mother’s petition which was for child care expenses and awarded such expenses retroactive to September 18, 2013. In the order appealed from, the Family Court denied the father’s objections to so much of the support magistrate’s order as related to child care expenses. The father appeals.

“Where the custodial parent is working . . . and incurs child care expenses as a result thereof, the court shall determine reasonable child care expenses and such child care expenses, where incurred, shall be prorated in the same proportion as each parent’s income is to the combined parental income” (Family Ct Act §413 [1] [c] [4]).

Here, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order regarding the computa *832 tion of his pro rata share of the child care expenses incurred by the mother while she is working (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [4]; Matter of Chiulli v Storms, 50 AD3d 788 [2008]; Matter of Bibicoff v Orfanakis, 48 AD3d 680 [2008]; see also Matter of Lewis v Redhead, 5 AD3d 600 [2004]) and for payment of such child care expenses retroactive to the date of the filing of the child support petition {see Family Ct Act § 449 [2]; Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 89 AD2d 894 [1982]).

Chambers, J.P., Austin, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 831, 24 N.Y.S.3d 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-ripley-v-valencia-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack