Keith v. Lawrence
| Decision Date | 08 January 2014 |
| Citation | 113 A.D.3d 615,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 00104,978 N.Y.S.2d 316 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Latania KEITH, respondent, v. James LAWRENCE, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James Lawrence, Jamaica, N.Y., appellant pro se.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Tally, J.), dated January 15, 2013, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Kirshblum, S.M.) dated October 16, 2012, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed him to pay child support in the sum of $1,250 per month.
ORDERED that the order dated January 15, 2013, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties are the parents of one child, of whom the mother has sole custody. Until the mother petitioned for child support in December 2009, the father voluntarily paid the mother the sum of $500 biweekly in child support. A temporary order of support dated March 5, 2010, awarded the mother the monthly sum of $1,062.
After a hearing on child support, the Support Magistrate found that combined parental income was $215,818.43, of which 47% was attributable to the father. Pursuant to Family Court Act § 413(1)(b)(3)(I) and upon consideration of the factors specified in Family Court Act § 413(1)(f), the Support Magistrate awarded child support based on the parties' combined parental income, rather than the combined parental income cap of $130,000. However, although the father's monthly support payment based on the parties' combined parental income totaled $1,437 monthly, the Support Magistrate modified the amount downward to $1,250 monthly, in light of the fact that the child was receiving Social Security disability derivative benefits based on the father's active disability claim. The father filed objections to the order of support and findings of fact, arguing, among other things, that the Support Magistrate erred in awarding child support based on combined parental income in excess of the $130,000 income cap. The order appealed from denied the father's objections on the ground that the facts cited supported the determination.
When the combined parental income exceeds $130,000, which was the “statutory cap” (Iarocci v. Iarocci, 98 A.D.3d 999, 1001, 951 N.Y.S.2d 176) in effect when the order in this case was entered, “the court shall determine the amount of child support for the combined parental income in excess of [$130,000] through...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peddycoart v. MacKay
...of the basis for its calculation of child support based on parental income in excess of the statutory cap (see Matter of Keith v. Lawrence, 113 A.D.3d 615, 616, 978 N.Y.S.2d 316 ; Matter of Parsick v. Rubio, 103 A.D.3d at 900, 962 N.Y.S.2d 251 ). This articulation should reflect "a careful ......
-
Spinner v. Spinner
...of the statutory cap to $250,000 (see Matter of Spano v. Spano , 168 A.D.3d 857, 860, 92 N.Y.S.3d 300 ; cf. Matter of Keith v. Lawrence , 113 A.D.3d 615, 616, 978 N.Y.S.2d 316 ; Ciampa v. Ciampa , 47 A.D.3d 745, 747, 850 N.Y.S.2d 190 ). In addition to the plaintiff's basic chid support obli......
-
Candea v. Candea
...income over the statutory cap (see Matter of Santman v. Schonfeldt, 159 A.D.3d 914, 915, 70 N.Y.S.3d 79 ; Matter of Keith v. Lawrence, 113 A.D.3d 615, 616, 978 N.Y.S.2d 316 ; Iarocci v. Iarocci, 98 A.D.3d 999, 1001, 951 N.Y.S.2d 176 )."The amount and duration of maintenance is a matter comm......
-
Pandis v. Lapas
...enough to meet his or her ‘actual needs and the amount required ... to live an appropriate lifestyle’ " ( Matter of Keith v. Lawrence , 113 A.D.3d 615, 616, 978 N.Y.S.2d 316, quoting Levesque v. Levesque , 73 A.D.3d 990, 990, 900 N.Y.S.2d 663 ; see Matter of Parsick v. Rubio , 103 A.D.3d 89......