Mireille J. v. Ernst F.J.
| Decision Date | 10 October 1995 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | In the Matter of MIREILLE J. (Anonymous), Respondent, v. ERNST F.J. (Anonymous), Appellant. |
Joan Forrester, Jamaica, for appellant.
Before MILLER, J.P., and ALTMAN, GOLDSTEIN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father (1) appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated December 14, 1993, which denied, in part, his objections to an order of the same court (Gartner, H.E.) dated November 5, 1993, which, after a hearing, directed him, inter alia, to pay support of $700 per month for the parties' son and remitted the matter to the Hearing Examiner for "specific findings of fact on the issue of the income imputed to [him]", and (2) purportedly appeals from an order of the same court (Gartner, H.E.), dated December 20, 1993, which made specific findings as to the income imputed to him.
ORDERED that the order dated December 14, 1993, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from the order dated December 20, 1993, must be dismissed as no appeal lies from an order of a Hearing Examiner where as here the appellant has not submitted objections to the order to a Family Court Judge (see, Family Ct Act § 439[e]; Matter of Werner v. Werner, 130 A.D.2d 754, 516 N.Y.S.2d 49).
In any event, contrary to the appellant's contentions, the Family Court properly calculated his child support obligation based upon an imputed income of $73,000. The appellant, a physician, earned this amount in his last year of employment prior to opening his own practice. The appellant acknowledged that he was able to pay child support of $500 per month. Therefore, since the appellant admitted an ability to pay child support of $6,000 per year, we reject his claims that the amounts claimed on his income tax returns, i.e. adjusted gross incomes of $5,786 and $3,544 in 1992 and 1993 respectively, accurately reflect the appellant's actual income. Indeed, in connection with his medical practice the appellant also reported gross receipts of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T.H. v. G.M.
... ... pr payee's actual ability to pay support. See ... generally Mireille J. v. Ernst F.J., 220 A.D.2d 503 (2d ... Dept. 1995). If the expenses do not affect disposable ... ...
-
Prill v. Mandell
...Court Judge (see, Family Ct Act § 439[e]; Matter of Ballard v. Davis, 229 A.D.2d 705, 645 N.Y.S.2d 148; Matter of Mireille J. v. Ernst F.J., 220 A.D.2d 503, 632 N.Y.S.2d 162; Matter of Zunino v. Mahoney, 204 A.D.2d 469, 614 N.Y.S.2d 161; Matter of Werner v. Werner, 130 A.D.2d 754, 516 N.Y.S......
-
Haas v. Haas
...Dane, --- A.D.2d ----, 688 N.Y.S.2d 754; see, Baraby v. Baraby, 250 A.D.2d 201, 204-205, 681 N.Y.S.2d 826; Matter of Mireille J. v. Ernst F. J., 220 A.D.2d 503, 504, 632 N.Y.S.2d 162). Plaintiff also claimed as business expenses costs related to a telephone ($1,665) and a truck ($4,793) tha......
-
Zwick v. Kulhan
...is based, in part, upon a parent's past earnings, actual earning capacity, and educational background (see, Matter of Mireille J. v. Ernst F.J., 220 A.D.2d 503, 632 N.Y.S.2d 162; Matter of Susan M. v. Louis N., 206 A.D.2d 612, 613, 614 N.Y.S.2d 584). The record reveals that the mother earne......