Sadaghiani v. Ghayoori

• Decision Date: 19 July 2012
• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05690,97 A.D.3d 1013,948 N.Y.S.2d 566
• Parties: Avideh SADAGHIANI, Respondent, v. Ramin GHAYOORI, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

97 A.D.3d 1013
948 N.Y.S.2d 566
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05690

Avideh SADAGHIANI, Respondent,
v.
Ramin GHAYOORI, Appellant.

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

July 19, 2012.

Friedman & Molinsek, PC, Delmar (Michael P. Friedman of counsel), for appellant.

Nestler & Gibson, PLLC, Albany (Roy K. Nestler of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MERCURE, J.P., ROSE, LAHTINEN, STEIN and McCARTHY, JJ.

ROSE, J.

[97 A.D.3d 1013]Appeal from an amended order of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered May 19, 2011 in Albany County, upon remittal, ordering, among other things, defendant to pay certain child support.

On a prior appeal in this divorce action, we, among other things, remitted the matter to Supreme Court to state the basis for its application of the full statutory percentage to the parties' total combined parental income over the statutory cap of $130,000 (83 A.D.3d 1309, 923 N.Y.S.2d 236 [2011] ). Upon remittal, Supreme Court issued an amended order setting forth the factors it considered. Defendant now appeals from that order.

Defendant contends that Supreme Court again failed to justify its determination to apply the child support percentage to the total combined income. We disagree. Where, as here, combined parental income exceeds $130,000, the court must [97 A.D.3d 1014]determine the parties' child support obligations for that excess amount by considering the so-called “paragraph (f)” factors ( seeDomestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][c][3]; [f]; Smith v. Smith, 1 A.D.3d 870, 872, 769 N.Y.S.2d 306 [2003] ). The amended order explains the basis of Supreme Court's determination and, in our view, reflects a careful consideration of the parties' circumstances ( see Matter of Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649, 655, 628 N.Y.S.2d 10, 651 N.E.2d 878 [1995] ). Although defendant also claims that Supreme Court relied on incomes that are not supported in the record, we previously affirmed the amounts of both parties' incomes and need not revisit those issues (83 A.D.3d at 1311–1312, 923 N.Y.S.2d 236). Accordingly, we will not disturb Supreme Court's exercise of its discretion in applying the full statutory percentage to the total combined parental income ( see Holterman v. Holterman, 3 N.Y.3d 1, 14, 781 N.Y.S.2d 458, 814 N.E.2d 765 [2004];Matter of Marcklinger v. Liebert, 88 A.D.3d 1114, 1116, 931 N.Y.S.2d 184 [2011];Smith v. Smith, 1 A.D.3d at 872, 769 N.Y.S.2d 306).

[948 N.Y.S.2d 567]

ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed, without...