Griffin v. Janik
| Decision Date | 14 July 1992 |
| Citation | 586 N.Y.S.2d 49,185 A.D.2d 635 |
| Parties | Matter of Ruth GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. Gary JANIK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Niagara County Legal Aid Society, Inc. by James Ciminelli, Niagara Falls, for appellant.
Ralph Boniello III, Niagara Falls, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and PINE, BALIO, FALLON and DOERR, JJ.
The parties are parents of a son, Kevin, born on April 7, 1977. They never married and respondent has been paying the sum of $15 per week for support under an order stipulated to between respondent and the Niagara County Department of Social Services. Respondent married and he and his wife have two daughters.
Petitioner commenced this proceeding in Niagara County Family Court, seeking an upward modification of support on the ground that respondent's income had increased. She further sought contributions from respondent toward child care and special educational expenses. Following a hearing, the Hearing Examiner determined that respondent should pay child support in the amount of $54 per week. The Hearing Examiner, applying the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA), multiplied respondent's income by the statutory percentage applicable to three children, then divided that amount by three to determine respondent's obligation for support of his son. Family Court confirmed the Hearing Examiner's award. That was error. The basic child support obligation must be determined on a per household basis "with the controlling percentage for each such home determined according to how many children are living with the same custodial parent" (Matter of Commissioner of Social Services o/b/o Patricia H. v. Raymond S., 180 A.D.2d 510, 513, 581 N.Y.S.2d 1). A strict application of the basic child support formula may be avoided only if the court determines that such an application would be "unjust or inappropriate" based upon a consideration of 10 factors set forth in Family Court Act § 413(1)(f) (Family Ct Act § 413[1][g]. One of the factors a court may consider is the needs of other children for whom the non-custodial parent is providing support (Family Ct Act § 413[1][f][8]. Therefore, we remit the matter to Family Court to reconsider petitioner's child support application in light of our conclusions herein. Family Court should, at that time, also address petitioner's request for contribution from respondent for special educational services for Kevin. The Hearing Examiner's order was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Karam v. Wilczek
-
Holmes v. Holmes
...of the 10 factors set forth therein (see, Malatino v. Malatino, 185 A.D.2d 605, 606, 586 N.Y.S.2d 837, 838; Matter of Griffin v. Janik, 185 A.D.2d 635, 586 N.Y.S.2d 49; Matter of Hitlin v. Towers, 175 A.D.2d 382, 572 N.Y.S.2d 453). When the combined parental income exceeds $80,000, the cour......
-
Mary v. B. v. James X.S.
...Matter of Susan M. v. Louis N., 206 A.D.2d 612, 614 N.Y.S.2d 584; Buck v. Buck, 195 A.D.2d 818, 600 N.Y.S.2d 520; Matter of Griffin v. Janik, 185 A.D.2d 635, 586 N.Y.S.2d 49). The Hearing Examiner concluded that it would be unjust to base the appellant's child support obligation on the part......
-
DeVoe v. Erck
...for each such home determined according to how many children are living with the same custodial parent' " (Matter of Griffin v. Janik, 185 A.D.2d 635, 636, 586 N.Y.S.2d 49, quoting Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Patricia H.] v. Raymond S., 180 A.D.2d 510, 513, 581 N.Y.S.2d 1). Sec......