Kremler v. Kremler
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 605 N.Y.S.2d 550,199 A.D.2d 901 |
| Parties | William D. KREMLER, Appellant, v. Eileen M. KREMLER, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 30 December 1993 |
Page 550
v.
Eileen M. KREMLER, Respondent.
Third Department.
Page 551
Kouray & Kouray (Steven X. Kouray, of counsel), Schenectady, for appellant.
Eileen M. Kremler, in pro. per.
Before WEISS, P.J., and MERCURE, WHITE, MAHONEY and CASEY, JJ.
MAHONEY, Justice.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Best, J.), entered July 16, 1992 in Fulton County, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion to modify plaintiff's child support obligations.
Pursuant to a separation agreement which was incorporated but not merged into the parties' December 1991 divorce judgment, defendant assumed custody of their three minor children. Plaintiff agreed to pay defendant $424 biweekly in child support (hereinafter the support obligation) and 62% of the weekly costs for the children's day care, here, $62 (hereinafter the day care obligation). Under the agreement, both the support obligation and percentage of the day care obligation attributable to the parties were stated to be in compliance with the formula set forth in the Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b] and provision was made for annual reassessment of these figures. Under the reassessment provisions, the parties were to exchange W-2 forms no later than February of each year "to attempt to reasonably determine the obligation of the parties and the percentage of responsibility with regard to day care expenses and other expenses under the Child Support Standards Act". Upon failure to agree, the matter was to be submitted to "the appropriate court" and the Child Support Standards Act was to apply.
Two months later, in February 1992, the parties exchanged their 1991 W-2 statements. Believing that application of the Child Support Standards Act to plaintiff's gross wages of $47,426.88 resulted in a biweekly support obligation of $488.52, $64.52 greater than the original $424 biweekly figure, and the parties being unable to agree upon a figure under the procedures outlined in the separation agreement, defendant sought judicial intervention; namely to increase the support obligation to $488.52 and for an award of counsel fees. Plaintiff opposed and cross-moved to compel defendant's compliance with other obligations under the agreement. Supreme Court [199 A.D.2d 902] granted defendant's motion, directed that the support obligation be increased as requested retroactive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adsit v. Quantum Chemical Corp.
...critical factor in establishing the extent of defendant's liability, the cause of action relates to the plan (see, Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. [199 A.D.2d 901] McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 139-140, 111 S.Ct. 478, 483-84, 112 L.Ed.2d 474; Sanson v. General Motors Corp., 966 F.2d 618, 621, cert. denied......
-
Melgar v. Melgar
...support of her application therefor ( see22 NYCRR 202.16[k][2]; Gass v. Gass, 91 A.D.3d 557, 558, 936 N.Y.S.2d 887; Kremler v. Kremler, 199 A.D.2d 901, 902–903, 605 N.Y.S.2d 550). Plaintiff may renew her application for counsel fees and submit the required information after the hearing on t......
-
Melgar v. Melgar, 1029 CA 15-00141.
...application therefor (see132 A.D.3d 129522 NYCRR 202.16 [k][2]; Gass v. Gass, 91 A.D.3d 557, 558, 936 N.Y.S.2d 887 ; Kremler v. Kremler, 199 A.D.2d 901, 902–903, 605 N.Y.S.2d 550 ). Plaintiff may renew her application for counsel fees and submit the required information after the hearing on......
-
Orofino v. Orofino
...child support, income on "paper [215 A.D.2d 999] only", as is the case herein, may properly be excluded (see, Kremler v. Kremler, 199 A.D.2d 901, 902, 605 N.Y.S.2d Supreme Court also correctly followed the provisions of the Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b] in w......