MATTER OF HURD v. Hurd
| Decision Date | 21 March 2003 |
| Citation | 757 N.Y.S.2d 170,303 A.D.2d 928 |
| Parties | In the Matter of RANDY HURD, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>LAURA HURD, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Petitioner, who suffers from hemophilia and hepatitis C and receives Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, contends that the Hearing Examiner erred in imputing income to him in calculating his child support obligation and that Family Court erred in denying his objections to the Hearing Examiner's order. We reject that contention. A Hearing Examiner is afforded considerable discretion in determining whether to impute income to a parent (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5]), and that determination may properly be based upon a parent's prior employment experience (see Matter of Berg v O'Leary, 193 AD2d 732, 733 [1993]). Here, petitioner himself testified that his SSI benefits were discontinued when he was employed, and the Hearing Examiner was entitled to impute income to petitioner based upon his testimony and other evidence concerning his prior earnings as a union flagman between the years 1997 and 1999. Although petitioner contends that his diagnosis of hepatitis C in the year 2001 limits his ability to work, he submitted no evidence to support that contention other than his own conclusory testimony to that effect. Indeed, the record contains a letter from his treating physician dated August 27, 2001, stating that, although physical labor may be difficult for petitioner, there is "no direct contraindication for employment" based on his medical conditions. In fact, the physician suggests therein that vocational retraining for nonstrenuous "labor employment" would be appropriate.
Petitioner further contends that the Hearing Examiner made a factual error in imputing his earnings. We perceive no reason to disturb the findings of fact of the Hearing Examiner, who was in the best position to hear and evaluate the evidence, including the credibility of the witnesses (see id. at 733-734; Quinn v Quinn, 145 AD2d 754, 756 [1988]). The record before us establishes that at one point in the year 1997 petitioner earned $16.39 per hour while employed through the union for Union Concrete and Construction Co. and that he earned $3,270.65 in a four-week period during the same year while working for STC Energy, Inc. The record further establishes that in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lauzonis v. Lauzonis
...past income, and demonstrated earning potential ( see Filiaci v. Filiaci, 68 A.D.3d 1810, 1811, 891 N.Y.S.2d 569;Matter of Hurd v. Hurd, 303 A.D.2d 928, 928, 757 N.Y.S.2d 170;Mayle v. Mayle, 299 A.D.2d 869, 869, 750 N.Y.S.2d 256). We agree with the wife, however, that the court erred in fai......
-
Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health & Family Servs. v. Ivy
...Larizza v. Larizza, 286 Ga. 461, 689 S.E.2d 306 (2010); Burns v. Edwards, 367 N.J.Super. 29, 842 A.2d 186 (2004); Hurd v. Hurd, 303 A.D.2d 928, 757 N.Y.S.2d 170 (2003); Lee v. Lee, 859 So.2d 408 (Miss.App.2003). At least two courts, moreover, have held that SSI benefits themselves may suppo......
-
Woodcock v. Welt
...to impute an annual gross income of $20,280, reflecting 30 hours a week of work at a wage of $13 an hour ( Matter of Hurd v. Hurd, 303 A.D.2d 928, 928, 757 N.Y.S.2d 170 [4th Dept. 2003] ; see Family Ct Act § 413[1][b][5] ). There is no doubt that the ALJ determination and the father's testi......
-
Montgomery v. List
...marks omitted]; see Matter of Bashir v. Brunner, 169 A.D.3d 1382, 1383, 93 N.Y.S.3d 481 [4th Dept. 2019] ; Matter of Hurd v. Hurd, 303 A.D.2d 928, 928, 757 N.Y.S.2d 170 [4th Dept. 2003] ). Moreover, courts may " ‘impute income based upon the party's past income or demonstrated earning poten......