Mosso v. Mosso

• Decision Date: 03 May 2011
• Citation: Mosso v. Mosso, 924 N.Y.S.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
• Parties: Paula M. MOSSO, respondent, v. John MOSSO, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

924 N.Y.S.2d 394

Paula M. MOSSO, respondent,

v.John MOSSO, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

May 3, 2011.

Stephens, Baroni, Reilly & Lewis, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Stephen R. Lewis and Kristen L. Cinque of counsel), for appellant.

Kaminsky & Rich, White Plains, N.Y. (Walter L. Rich of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Tolbert, J.), dated February 22, 2010, as, upon a decision of same court dated June 26, 2009, made after an nonjury trial, (1) imputed an annual income to him in the sum of $52,000 for the purpose of calculating his child support obligations, (2) directed him to pay the sum of $1,160 per month in child support retroactive to the date of the commencement of the action, (3) directed him to pay one-half of the mortgage and real estate tax charges of the marital residence and half the cost of any repair to the home in excess of $750, (4) directed him to pay 100% of a $30,000 home equity loan on the marital residence, (5) awarded the plaintiff the sum of $13,777 from certain bank accounts, and (6) awarded the plaintiff exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence until the last of the parties' children reaches majority.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, by (1) deleting so much of the second decretal paragraph thereof as directed the defendant to pay the sum of $1,160 per month in child support, (2) deleting from the second decretal paragraph the words "retroactive to August 1, 2007,"(3) deleting so much of the fifth decretal paragraph as directed the defendant to pay one-half of the mortgage and real estate tax charges of the marital residence and half the cost of any repair to the home in excess of $750, and (4) deleting so much of the sixth decretal paragraph as directed that the defendant shall be 100% responsible for repaying a $30,000 home equity loan; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, and for entry of an amended judgment thereafter; and it is further,

ORDERED that in the interim, the defendant shall continue to pay the sum of $1,160 per month in child support.

A court need not rely upon a party's own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party's past income or demonstrated future potential earnings (seeWesche v. Wesche,77 A.D.3d 921, 923, 909 N.Y.S.2d 764;Brown v. Brown,239 A.D.2d 535, 657 N.Y.S.2d 764).The court may impute income to a party based on his or her employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or money received from friends and relatives (seeWesche v. Wesche,77 A.D.3d at 923, 909 N.Y.S.2d 764;Matter of Collins v. Collins,241 A.D.2d 725, 727, 659 N.Y.S.2d 955).Where a party's account is not believable, the court may impute a true or potential income higher than alleged (seeWesche v. Wesche,77 A.D.3d at 923, 909 N.Y.S.2d 764;Lilikakis v. Lilikakis,308 A.D.2d 435, 436, 764 N.Y.S.2d 206).Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in it imputing an annual income to the defendant in the sum of $52,000 for the purpose of calculating his child support obligations.

However, in calculating the child support award, the Supreme Court's direction that the defendant pay both child support and half of the carrying charges on the marital residence resulted in an improper double shelter allowance (seeCohen v. Cohen,286 A.D.2d 698, 698–699, 730 N.Y.S.2d 343;Krantz v. Krantz,175 A.D.2d 863, 864, 573 N.Y.S.2d 736;see alsoLenigan v. Lenigan,159 A.D.2d 108, 112, 558 N.Y.S.2d 727).Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to recalculate the child support award "taking into account the shelter costs incurred by the defendant in providing housing to the plaintiff and the minor children"(Damon v. Damon,34 A.D.3d 416, 416, 823 N.Y.S.2d 540).

The Supreme Court also improperly awarded retroactive child support to August 1, 2007, the date of the commencement of the action, since the plaintiff did not request child support until she filed an amended complaint on August 27, 2007(seeHiggins v. Higgins,50 A.D.3d 852, 854, 857 N.Y.S.2d 171;cf.Beach v. Beach,158 A.D.2d 848, 551 N.Y.S.2d 429).Accordingly, since an award of child support may be made "effective as of the date of the application therefor"( Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][7][a] ), on remittal, the Supreme Court's new child support award should be made retroactive to August 27, 2007.The defendant's contention that the plaintiff is not entitled to any retroactive child support because she later withdrew her amended complaint is without merit.The record establishes that the amended complaint was withdrawn solely to relinquish a cause of action for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, and that the plaintiff's request for child support was intended to remain a part of the action.

Further, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, because the Supreme Court's directive that the defendant pay "one-half of...