Flanter v. Flanter
| Decision Date | 06 October 1986 |
| Citation | 506 N.Y.S.2d 780,123 A.D.2d 626 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Gertrude FLANTER, Respondent, v. Alfred FLANTER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Molinoff & McEvily, Larchmont (Daniel D. Molinoff of counsel), for appellant.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and NIEHOFF, EIBER and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Auperin, J.), entered January 15, 1985, which, inter alia, directed him to increase child support payments for his daughter from $25 per week to $102 per week.
Order modified, on the facts, by decreasing the amount of child support payable by the father for the parties' daughter from $102 per week to $60 per week. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court based its decision to increase the amount of child support payable by the father for support of his daughter on the fact that the father had exaggerated by $4,000 the amount he was expending for his son's support and educational expenses. However, the Family Court sustained a finding that the father expended $6,000 annually for the support and educational expenses of his son. Pursuant to the court's finding, the father is thus expending approximately $115 per week for his son's support. The uncontradicted evidence adduced at the hearing reveals that the father's net weekly income is approximately $391; he pays carrying charges on the former marital residence of approximately $144 per week; and he is paying $30 per week in alimony pursuant to a pre-existing court order. The increase in support mandated by the order herein appealed, when considered together with the father's other support obligations and measured against his net income, exceeds his present financial capabilities. The father's need to maintain a separate household and have money to live on after support payments are made must be taken into account (see, eg., Colabella v. Colabella, 86 A.D.2d 643, 447 N.Y.S.2d 26; Leigh v. Leigh, 66 A.D.2d 735, 411 N.Y.S.2d 320; Bruno v. Bruno, 51 A.D.2d 862, 380 N.Y.S.2d 165, lv. denied 39 N.Y.2d 706, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 351 N.E.2d 437). An examination of the Family Court's decision indicates that the court did not properly balance the needs of the children against the father's current ability to pay. The courts are authorized to modify a support order where an assertion of inadequate child...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosenberg v. Rosenberg
...the plaintiff), it is clear that the defendant will be stripped of all ability to meet his own basic needs (see, Matter of Flanter v. Flanter, 123 A.D.2d 626, 506 N.Y.S.2d 780; Chachkes v. Chachkes, 107 A.D.2d 786, 484 N.Y.S.2d Furthermore, the bulk of the weekly award, consisting of the ch......
-
Frei v. Pearson
...v. Hirschman, 156 A.D.2d 644, 645, 549 N.Y.S.2d 142; Keehn v. Keehn, 137 A.D.2d 493, 495, 524 N.Y.S.2d 238; Matter of Flanter v. Flanter, 123 A.D.2d 626, 627, 506 N.Y.S.2d 780). In addition, under the circumstances of this case, the husband should be authorized to declare all three of the p......
-
Polychronopoulos v. Polychronopoulos
...196 A.D.2d 488, 492, 600 N.Y.S.2d 968; see, Hirschman v. Hirschman, 156 A.D.2d 644, 645, 549 N.Y.S.2d 142; Matter of Flanter v. Flanter, 123 A.D.2d 626, 627, 506 N.Y.S.2d 780). Finally, given the respective financial positions of the parties, the defendant's lack of candor regarding his inc......
-
Manno v. Manno
...a separate household and have money to live on after support payments are made (see, Keehn v. Keehn, supra; Matter of Flanter v. Flanter, 123 A.D.2d 626, 506 N.Y.S.2d 780), and any tax consequences for liquidating assets. It is clear that the defendant former husband, upon payment of the ba......