Anderson v. Anderson
| Citation | 2008 NY Slip Op 02945,855 N.Y.S.2d 194,50 A.D.3d 610 |
| Decision Date | 01 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2007-02922. |
| Parties | DANIEL ANDERSON, Appellant, v. CAROLYN ANDERSON, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof modifying the visitation schedule provided in the parties' separation agreement and substituting therefor a provision directing that visitation shall be in accordance with that schedule; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant.
Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (h) provides that a validly-executed support agreement which deviates from the basic child support obligation set forth in the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) must specify, inter alia, the amount that the basic child support obligation would have been under the CSSA and the reason or reasons that the agreement does not provide for payment of that amount. The separation agreement entered between the parties failed to set forth the presumptively correct amount of support that would have been fixed pursuant to the CSSA, and failed to articulate the reason the parties chose to deviate from the CSSA guidelines. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly vacated those provisions of the agreement purporting to provide for the plaintiff's child support obligation (see Jefferson v Jefferson, 21 AD3d 879, 881 [2005]; Cardinal v Cardinal, 275 AD2d 756, 757 [2000]; see also Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [h]).
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, a review of the court's decision in the instant case reflects sufficient articulation of its reasons for determining the amount of child support to be awarded on the parties' net combined income over $80,000 and reflects its careful consideration of the parties' circumstances and the child's needs (see Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 85 NY2d 649, 655 [1995]; Griggs v Griggs, 44 AD3d 710 [2007]; Kaplan v Kaplan, 21 AD3d 993, 993-995 [2005]).
Moreover, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maddaloni v. Maddaloni
...the entry of the judgment of divorce (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647 ; Anderson v. Anderson, 50 A.D.3d 610, 610, 855 N.Y.S.2d 194 ). These three orders, which awarded pendente lite maintenance and counsel fees to the plaintiff, are not reviewable on ......
-
Cummins v. Lune
...support because it fails to comply with the requirements of the CSSA (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][h] ; Anderson v. Anderson, 50 A.D.3d 610, 611, 855 N.Y.S.2d 194 [2008] ; Jefferson v. Jefferson, 21 A.D.3d 879, 881, 800 N.Y.S.2d 612 [2005] ; compare Tremont v. Tremont, 35 A.D.3d 10......
-
Renck v. Renck
...be reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of divorce ( see Badwal v. Badwal, 126 A.D.3d 736, 737, 5 N.Y.S.3d 487; Anderson v. Anderson, 50 A.D.3d 610, 610, 855 N.Y.S.2d 194; Samuelsen v. Samuelsen, 124 A.D.2d 650, 652, 508 N.Y.S.2d 36). The defendant correctly contends that he is entitled......
-
Renck v. Renck
...be reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of divorce (see Badwal v. Badwal, 126 A.D.3d 736, 737, 5 N.Y.S.3d 487 ; Anderson v. Anderson, 50 A.D.3d 610, 610, 855 N.Y.S.2d 194 ; Samuelsen v. Samuelsen, 124 A.D.2d 650, 652, 508 N.Y.S.2d 36 ).131 A.D.3d 1151The defendant correctly contends tha......