Murray v. Murray

Decision Date26 September 2018
Docket NumberDocket No. F–11322–09/17E,2017–10626
Parties In the Matter of Susan MURRAY, appellant, v. E. Christopher MURRAY, respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

164 A.D.3d 1451
84 N.Y.S.3d 524

In the Matter of Susan MURRAY, appellant,
v.
E. Christopher MURRAY, respondent.

2017–10626
Docket No.
F–11322–09/17E

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

Submitted—June 14, 2018
September 26, 2018


84 N.Y.S.3d 525

Horn & Horn, Huntington, N.Y. (Jeffrey S. Horn and Philip Parlante of counsel), for appellant.

Fass & Greenberg, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Elena L. Greenberg of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, BETSY BARROS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Anthony S. Senft, Jr., J.), dated September 6, 2017. The order denied the mother's objections to an order of the same court (Aletha V. Fields, S.M.) dated June 22, 2017, which, after a hearing, reduced the father's child support obligation.

ORDERED that the order dated September 6, 2017, is affirmed, with costs.

The parties were previously married and have two children together. The parties executed a stipulation of settlement dated July 16, 2001, which was incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce dated January 3, 2002, in which they agreed, inter alia, to share joint custody of the children, with the mother having physical custody. The parties agreed to opt out of the basic child support obligations under the Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter the CSSA), and that the father would pay a certain sum for child support from August 1, 2001, through January 31, 2006. The parties also executed a rider to the stipulation, in which they agreed that beginning on February 1, 2006, until both children were emancipated, the father would pay child support to the mother based on the provisions set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240(1–b) and by using the parties' total combined income for the year 2005. In an order dated October 30, 2009, the Family Court, upon the parties' consent, directed the father to pay $740.56 per week in child support for both children through the Support Collection Unit (hereinafter the SCU).

In March 2017, the SCU notified the parties of a cost-of-living adjustment (hereinafter COLA) to the father's child support obligation for the parties' one remaining unemancipated child (hereinafter the subject child), which increased the father's weekly child support obligation to $822. The mother filed an objection to the COLA pursuant to Family Court Act § 413–a, and a hearing was held before a

84 N.Y.S.3d 526

Support Magistrate. At the time, the subject child was 20 years old and entering her third year of college. After the hearing, the Support Magistrate, in an order dated June 22,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Candea v. Candea
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 5, 2019
    ...458, 814 N.E.2d 765 ; Matter of Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649, 653, 628 N.Y.S.2d 10, 651 N.E.2d 878 ; Matter of Murray v. Murray, 164 A.D.3d 1451, 1453, 84 N.Y.S.3d 524 ). Where the combined parental income exceeds that ceiling, the court, in fixing the basic child support obligation on......
  • Alliger-Bograd v. Bograd
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 26, 2020
    ...based upon the number of children to be supported, to combined parental income up to a particular ceiling" ( Matter of Murray v. Murray, 164 A.D.3d 1451, 1453, 84 N.Y.S.3d 524 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). "Where the combined parental income exceeds that ceiling, the court, in fixin......
  • Brooks v. Cnty. of Suffolk
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 27, 2019
    ...of Tejada v. City of New York, 161 A.D.3d at 877, 77 N.Y.S.3d 95 ; see Matter of Messick v. Greenwood Lake Union Free Sch. Dist., 164 A.D.3d at 1451, 84 N.Y.S.3d 215 ). While the petitioners' assertions that they were not aware of the County's involvement in the cause of the incident does n......
  • Giraldo v. Fernandez
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • November 10, 2021
    ...Court Act § 413(1)(f) and/or the child support percentage set forth in Family Court Act § 413(1)(c)(3)'" (Matter of Murray v Murray, 164 A.D.3d 1451, 1453, quoting Matter of Santman v Schonfeldt, 159 A.D.3d 914, 915). "Where, as here, the combined parental income exceeds the statutory cap, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT