Matter of Stefani L. v. Eugene B.

142 A.D.3d 919, 37 N.Y.S.3d 884
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 29, 2016
Docket1759
StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.D.3d 919 (Matter of Stefani L. v. Eugene B.) 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 Stefani L. v. Eugene B., 142 A.D.3d 919, 37 N.Y.S.3d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Tandra L. Dawson, J.), entered on or about April 16, 2013, which denied petitioner’s objection to an order of support of the Support Magistrate, dated January 2, 2013, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly determined that the Support Magistrate providently exercised his discretion in declining to impute additional income to respondent (see Matter of Minerva R. v Jorge L.A., 59 AD3d 243, 244 [1st Dept 2009]). The document that petitioner contends establishes that respondent has additional income concerns a period predating the child’s birth, the filing of the child support petition and the time of trial. Since the Support Magistrate’s findings regarding respondent’s income were based on credibility determinations and are supported by the record, Supreme Court properly concluded that such findings should not be disturbed.

Although the Support Magistrate erred in failing to consider

*920 the statutory factors for determining whether or not to award child support based on parental income above the statutory cap (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [3]; [f]), for establishing each party’s obligation to pay a portion of the cost of health insurance premiums and unreimbursed medical expenses (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [5]), and for deviating from the noncustodial parent’s pro rata share of childcare expenses (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [4]; [f]), our application of those factors to the record before us leads us to the same result.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Related

Minerva R. v. Jorge L.A.
59 A.D.3d 243 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 A.D.3d 919, 37 N.Y.S.3d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-stefani-l-v-eugene-b-nyappdiv-2016.