Mayer v. Mayer

291 A.D.2d 384, 736 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1300
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 4, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 384 (Mayer v. Mayer) 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
Mayer v. Mayer, 291 A.D.2d 384, 736 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Williams, J.H.O.), entered November 3, 2000, as (1) directed him to pay the defendant wife $3,900 per month in child support, (2) directed him to pay 100% of the children’s unreimbursed medical, pharmaceutical, optical, dental, orthodontic, therapeutic, and care expenses, and (3) directed him to pay to the defendant wife the principal sum of $23,009.74 in arrears in maintenance and child support.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[385]*385The Supreme Court properly awarded child support pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (k). The plaintiff presented insufficient evidence to determine his gross income and, as a result, the Supreme Court properly awarded child support based on the “needs” and “standard of living” of the children (Kay v Kay, 37 NY2d 632, 636; Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [k]). For the same reason, the Supreme Court properly directed the plaintiff to pay 100% of the children’s unreimbursed medical, pharmaceutical, optical, dental, orthodontic, therapeutic, and care expenses.

Based on the meticulous records kept by the defendant of the payments she made on behalf of herself and the children during the pendency of this action, and the corresponding lack of any records kept by the plaintiff, the Supreme Court properly awarded the defendant the full requested amount of retroactive arrears. Florio, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Almeida v. Almeida
2017 NY Slip Op 4088 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Lew v. Lew
82 A.D.3d 1171 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Mohammed v. Aziz
43 A.D.3d 1169 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Matter of Mayer v. Mayer
2006 NY Slip Op 50854(U) (Orange Family Court, 2006)
Amsellem v. Amsellem
15 A.D.3d 510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Acosta v. Acosta
301 A.D.2d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
291 A.D.2d 384, 736 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayer-v-mayer-nyappdiv-2002.