Moore v. Shapiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. Shapiro

30 A.D.3d 1054, 815 N.Y.S.2d 855

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

DecidedJune 9, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 1054 (Moore v. Shapiro) 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

Moore v. Shapiro, 30 A.D.3d 1054, 815 N.Y.S.2d 855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Gail A. Donofrio, J.), entered March 16, 2005 in a proceeding [1055]*1055pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied respondent’s objections to the order of the Support Magistrate.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly denied respondent’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order determining that petitioner is the custodial parent for child support purposes and ordering respondent to pay biweekly child support in the amount of $75. “[W]here, as here, the parents’ custodial arrangement splits the child! ]’s physical custody so that neither can be said to have physical custody of the child! 3 for a majority of the time, the parent having the greater pro rata share of the child support obligation . . . should be identified as the ‘noncustodial’ parent for the purpose of support regardless of the labels employed by the parties” (Baraby v Baraby, 250 AD2d 201, 204 [1998]; see Matter of Carlino v Carlino, 277 AD2d 897 [2000]). Here, the Support Magistrate determined that respondent had the greater pro rata share of the child support obligation (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b]; Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723, 727 [1998]), and there is no basis on the record before us to disturb that determination. Respondent contends for the first time on appeal that the Support Magistrate erred in refusing to impute a higher income to petitioner and thus that contention is not preserved for our review (see Matter of Ouimet v Ouimet, 186 AD2d 1002 [1992]). In any event, there is no evidence in the record that petitioner willfully reduced her earnings below her earning capacity (see generally Matter of Fries v Price-Yablin, 209 AD2d 1002, 1003 [1994]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.E, Scudder, Martoche, Smith and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Gail A. Donofrio, J.), entered March 16, 2005 in a proceeding [1055]*1055pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied respondent’s objections to the order of the Support Magistrate.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly denied respondent’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order determining that petitioner is the custodial parent for child support purposes and ordering respondent to pay biweekly child support in the amount of $75. “[W]here, as here, the parents’ custodial arrangement splits the child! ]’s physical custody so that neither can be said to have physical custody of the child! 3 for a majority of the time, the parent having the greater pro rata share of the child support obligation . . . should be identified as the ‘noncustodial’ parent for the purpose of support regardless of the labels employed by the parties” (Baraby v Baraby, 250 AD2d 201, 204 [1998]; see Matter of Carlino v Carlino, 277 AD2d 897 [2000]). Here, the Support Magistrate determined that respondent had the greater pro rata share of the child support obligation (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b]; Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723, 727 [1998]), and there is no basis on the record before us to disturb that determination. Respondent contends for the first time on appeal that the Support Magistrate erred in refusing to impute a higher income to petitioner and thus that contention is not preserved for our review (see Matter of Ouimet v Ouimet, 186 AD2d 1002 [1992]). In any event, there is no evidence in the record that petitioner willfully reduced her earnings below her earning capacity (see generally Matter of Fries v Price-Yablin, 209 AD2d 1002, 1003 [1994]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.E, Scudder, Martoche, Smith and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 1054, 815 N.Y.S.2d 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-shapiro-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack