Lee v. Lee
Decision Date | 09 May 2005 |
Docket Number | 2003-01602. |
Citation | 18 A.D.3d 508,2005 NY Slip Op 03816,795 N.Y.S.2d 283 |
Parties | PAMELA B. LEE, Appellant-Respondent, v. KENNETH LEE, Respondent-Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the defendant shall continue to pay the sum of $3,100 per month in child support pending further determination of the Supreme Court.
We find no basis upon which to disturb the Supreme Court's imputation of unreported income to the defendant in such an amount that his total annual gross income for the purposes of applying the terms of the Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter CSSA; Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b]) amounts to the sum of $300,000 per year (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [i]). However, we do agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court erred in proceeding to calculate his child support liability based on that amount.
The Supreme Court erred in failing to deduct from the sum of $300,000, noted above, the amount that the husband is to be required to pay in maintenance, that is, $60,000 per year (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [vii] [C]; e.g., Rohrs v Rohrs, 297 AD2d 317 [2002]). The court also erred in considering the maintenance to be received by the wife as her income for purposes of performing the CSSA calculations (e.g. Harrison v Harrison, 255 AD2d 490 [1998]; Huber v Huber, 229 AD2d 904 [1996]). The Court should have applied the standard "child support percentages" defined by statute (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [3]) to the first $80,000 of the $240,000 in "combined parental income," 100% of which is attributable to the husband, in accordance with the foregoing. With regard to the remaining $160,000, the Court should have (1) applied the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (f) (1) through (10), or (2) applied the standard "child support percentages" specified in Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (b) (3), or (3) applied some combination of both the two approaches stated above (see Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 85 NY2d 649, 655 [1995]; Matter of Lava v Damianou, 10 AD3d 420 [2004]; Jordan v Jordan, 8 AD3d 444 [2004]).
As an alternative to remitting the matter to the Supreme Court for a de novo determination of child support, in the interest of judicial economy, we believe that it is appropriate in the particular circumstances of this case to conduct our own review of the record in light of the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (f) (1) through (10). Considering, among other things, the amount of the husband's income and the fact that the husband will ultimately be solely responsible for child support (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [f] [10]), we conclude that the standard "child support percentages" specified in Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (b) (3), should not be applied to the full $160,000 by which the husband's income exceeds...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Michael V. v. Eva S.
...of pendente lite maintenance was not reportable in the most recent tax year so it is not counted as income (see Lee v. Lee, 18 AD3d 508, 795 N.Y.S.2d 283 [2d Dept.,2005]"The court also erred in considering the maintenance to be received by the wife as her income for purposes of performing t......
-
Mojdeh M. v. Jamshid A.
...considered income for the recipient spouse for the purpose of determining a final child support award ( see Lee v. Lee, 18 A.D.3d 508, 795 N.Y.S.2d 283 [2 Dept., 2005]; see also Krukenkamp v. Krukenkamp, 54 A.D.3d 345, 862 N.Y.S.2d 571 [2 Dept.,2008]; Lueker v. Lueker, 72 A.D.3d 655, 898 N.......
-
D.D. v. A.D.
...for purposes of child support. See Shapiro v. Shapiro, 35 A.D.3d 585, 829 N.Y.S.2d 114 (2d Dept.2006) ; See also Lee v. Lee, 18 A.D.3d 508, 795 N.Y.S.2d 283 (2d Dept.2005). Notably, the Legislature has since changed the maintenance and child support statutes, effective to cases commenced af......
-
C.G. v. R.G.
...714 N.Y.S.2d 323 (2d Dept.2000). This award will be taxable to the recipient and tax deductible to the payor. See Lee v. Lee, 18 A.D.3d 508, 795 N.Y.S.2d 283 (2d Dept.2005). The first payment of the final award of maintenance shall be made within 20 days of the singing of the Judgment of Di......