Renzulli v. Renzulli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Renzulli v. Renzulli

251 A.D.2d 482, 674 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6849

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

DecidedJune 15, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 482 (Renzulli v. Renzulli) 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

Renzulli v. Renzulli, 251 A.D.2d 482, 674 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an amended supplemental judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Radin, J.H.O.), entered June 25, 1997, as directed him to pay $252 per week in child support.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, it was not improper for the Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter the J.H.O.), to base the determination of the amount of his child support obligation upon his actual earning capacity, calculated by averaging his reported income for the five years immediately preceding 1995 (see, Murphy-Artale v Artale, 219 AD2d 587). In view of the facts before him, the J.H.O. was not required to accept at face value the precipitous drop in the appellant’s income for 1995, or to include it in his calculations.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an amended supplemental judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Radin, J.H.O.), entered June 25, 1997, as directed him to pay $252 per week in child support.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, it was not improper for the Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter the J.H.O.), to base the determination of the amount of his child support obligation upon his actual earning capacity, calculated by averaging his reported income for the five years immediately preceding 1995 (see, Murphy-Artale v Artale, 219 AD2d 587). In view of the facts before him, the J.H.O. was not required to accept at face value the precipitous drop in the appellant’s income for 1995, or to include it in his calculations.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 482, 674 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renzulli-v-renzulli-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack