DeCillis v. DeCillis

• Decision Date: 05 July 2017
• Citation: 152 A.D.3d 512,58 N.Y.S.3d 126
• Parties: In the Matter of Tracy DECILLIS, appellant, v. Thomas DECILLIS, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

152 A.D.3d 512

58 N.Y.S.3d 126

In the Matter of Tracy DECILLIS, appellant,

v.Thomas DECILLIS, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

July 5, 2017.

Tracy Decillis, Staten Island, NY, appellant pro se.

Castrovinci & Mady, Smithtown, NY (Matthew K. Mady of counsel), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kathryn L. Coward, S.M.), dated February 22, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, (1) directed the father to pay the sum of only $404 in biweekly child support for the parties' child based on, inter alia, income that was imputed to the mother and a credit awarded to the father in the sum of $168, to be applied biweekly, for expenses associated with visitation, and (2) denied those branches of the petition which sought to direct the father to contribute to the costs of private school tuition and expenses and extracurricular activities.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the father a credit against his child support obligation in the sum of $168, to be applied biweekly, for expenses associated with visitation, and substituting therefor a provision awarding the father a credit against his child support obligation in the sum of $33, to be applied biweekly, for expenses associated with visitation, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof directing the father to pay the sum of $404 in biweekly child support for the subject child, and substituting therefor a provision requiring him to pay the sum of $539 in biweekly child support; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The parties are the parents of one child, born in 2003. In June 2015, the mother filed a petition for child support. After a hearing, the Support Magistrate determined that the father's basic child support obligation would be $572 biweekly. In making that determination, the Support Magistrate imputed annual income of $43,000 to the mother for the purpose of calculating the father's child support obligation. The Support Magistrate then awarded the father a biweekly credit against this child support obligation in the sum of $168 to compensate him for the "extraordinary" expenses associated with visitation, and directed him to pay child support in the sum of $404 biweekly. The mother appeals, and we modify.

"When determining a parent's child support obligation, ‘[a] court need not rely upon a party's own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party's past income or demonstrated future potential earnings' " (Matter of Abruzzo v. Jackson, 137 A.D.3d 1017, 1018, 27 N.Y.S.3d 225, quoting Matter of Rohme v. Burns, 92 A.D.3d 946, 947, 939 N.Y.S.2d 532 ; see Matter of Liling Gao v. Ming Min Fan, 148 A.D.3d 897, 898, 48 N.Y.S.3d 771 ; Matter of Napoli v. Koller, 140 A.D.3d 1070, 1071, 34 N.Y.S.3d 488 ; Matter of Gebaide v. McGoldrick, 74 A.D.3d 966, 967, 901 N.Y.S.2d 857 ). A support magistrate "is afforded considerable discretion in determining whether to impute income to a parent" (Matter of Julianska v. Majewski, 78 A.D.3d 1182, 1183, 911 N.Y.S.2d 655 ), and "we accord deference to a support magistrate's credibility determinations" (Matter of Napoli v. Koller, 140 A.D.3d at 1071, 34 N.Y.S.3d 488 ; see Matter of Kameneva v. Hughes, 138 A.D.3d 854, 855, 28 N.Y.S.3d 343 ; Matter of Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 114 A.D.3d 798, 798, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531 ; Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang, 89 A.D.3d 946, 947, 933 N.Y.S.2d 80 ).

Here, the Support Magistrate properly imputed income to the mother based upon her prior income, her choice to engage in only part-time employment, and her current living arrangement, in which she did not pay rent or related housing expenses (see Family Ct. Act § 413[1][b][5][iv], [v] ; Matter of Liling Gao v. Ming Min Fan, 148 A.D.3d at 898, 48 N.Y.S.3d 771 ; Matter of Napoli v. Koller, 140 A.D.3d at 1071, 34 N.Y.S.3d 488 ; Matter of Rohme v. Burns, 92 A.D.3d at 947, 939 N.Y.S.2d 532 ; Matter of Strella v. Ferro, 42 A.D.3d 544, 546, 841 N.Y.S.2d 118 ; cf. Matter of Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 114 A.D.3d at 799, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531 ). Inasmuch as the Support Magistrate's decision to impute $43,000 in annual income to the mother is supported by the record, it should not be disturbed (see Matter of Kameneva v. Hughes, 138 A.D.3d at 855, 28 N.Y.S.3d 343 ; Matter of Lorys v. Powell, 116 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 983 N.Y.S.2d 892 ).

However, the Support Magistrate improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the father a credit against his child support obligation in the sum of $168, to be applied biweekly, for " extraordinary" expenses associated with visitation, which included the sum of $67 for travel expenses. Pursuant to Family Court Act § 413(1)(f), the court must direct the noncustodial parent to pay his or her pro rata share of the basic child support obligation unless it finds that the pro rata share is " unjust or inappropriate" ( Family Ct. Act § 413[1][f] ), based upon consideration of factors such as "extraordinary...