Bink v. Bink, CA 07-00564.
| Decision Date | 03 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | CA 07-00564. |
| Citation | 55 A.D.3d 1244,2008 NY Slip Op 07287,865 N.Y.S.2d 417 |
| Parties | SUSAN C. BINK, Respondent, v. PATRICK B. BINK, Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered January 31, 2007 in a divorce action. The judgment, among other things, ordered defendant to pay child support.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by granting defendant a credit against his child support arrears for his voluntary payment of child support during the pendency of this action, providing that defendant's severance payments are defendant's separate property and vacating the direction that defendant pay his pro rata share of the college expenses of the parties' middle child after she attained the age of 21 and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment in this divorce action that, inter alia, distributed the parties' marital property and ordered defendant to pay child support for the parties' remaining unemancipated child as well as his pro rata share of the college expenses of the parties' middle child until she completes college or attains the age of 25. We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in determining that he was not entitled to a credit against his child support arrears for his voluntary payment of child support during the pendency of this action. "[V]oluntary payments are preferred while [an action] is pending" (Shanon v Patterson, 294 AD2d 485, 485 [2002]), and the paying spouse "is entitled to a credit for `any amount of [child support that] has been paid'" (Burns v Burns, 84 NY2d 369, 377 [1994]; see Lester v Lester, 237 AD2d 872, 873 [1997]; DiSanto v DiSanto, 198 AD2d 838 [1993]). We therefore modify the judgment accordingly, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine the amount of that credit.
We further agree with defendant that the court erred in determining that his severance payments are marital property. Inasmuch as defendant's right to receive those payments did not exist either during the marriage or prior to the commencement of this action, nor did the severance payments constitute compensation for past services, the severance payments are d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curley v. Curley
...during the marriage (see Olivo v. Olivo, 82 N.Y.2d 202, 207–208, 604 N.Y.S.2d 23, 624 N.E.2d 151 [1993] ; compare Bink v. Bink, 55 A.D.3d 1244, 1245, 865 N.Y.S.2d 417 [2008] ). Here, the wife's inclusion in the retirement incentive program was based, at least in part, on the number of years......
-
Ropiecki v. Ropiecki
...not subject to equitable distribution ( see DeJesus v. DeJesus, 90 N.Y.2d 643, 652, 665 N.Y.S.2d 36, 687 N.E.2d 1319; Bink v. Bink, 55 A.D.3d 1244, 1245, 865 N.Y.S.2d 417). In light of the foregoing, the distributive award must be reconsidered to ensure that the plaintiff is awarded her equ......
-
L.L. v. R.L.
...Department precedent that deals with the question of the “implied obligation” to pay for college after age 21. In Bink v. Bink, 55 A.D.3d 1244, 865 N.Y.S.2d 417 (4th Dept.2008), the court held that the lower court erred in directing a parent to pay child college expenses after age 21, “inas......
-
Harold v. Harold
...prior to the commencement of this action, nor did the severance payments constitute compensation for past services" (Bink v. Bink, 55 A.D.3d 1244, 1245, 865 N.Y.S.2d 417 ). In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the severance payment was marital property, the court's determination was ......
-
§ 7.12 Other Employee Compensation and Fringe Benefits
...v. Olivo, 82 N.Y.2d 202, 604 N.Y.S.2d 23, 624 N.E.2d 151 (1993); Wiener v. Wiener, 57 A.D.3d 241, 868 N.Y.S.2d. 197 (2008); Bink v. Bink, 55 A.D.3d 1244, 865 N.Y.S.2d 417 (2008). Oklahoma: Davis v. Davis, 87 P.3d 640 (Okla. App. 2004). South Carolina: Fisher v. Fisher, 319 S.C. 500, 462 S.E......