Sharlow v. Sharlow
| Decision Date | 01 October 2010 |
| Parties | Jamie W. SHARLOW, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert J. SHARLOW, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
77 A.D.3d 1430
Jamie W. SHARLOW, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Robert J. SHARLOW, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Oct. 1, 2010.
Abbie Goldbas, Utica, for Defendant-Appellant.
Todd D. Bennett, Herkimer, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment of divorce that, inter alia, directed him to pay $825.90 per month in child support and $650 per month in maintenance for a period of 36 months, distributed the parties' debts and assets and ordered him to pay counsel fees to plaintiff in the amount of $1,000. We conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in imputing income of $45,000 to defendant for the purposes of calculating his maintenance and child support obligations. Contrary to defendant's contention, "a court is not required to find that a parent deliberately reduced his or her income to avoid a child support obligation before imputing income to that parent" ( Irene v. Irene [Appeal No. 2], 41 A.D.3d 1179, 1180, 837 N.Y.S.2d 797), and a "court may properly find a true or potential income higher than that claimed where the party's account of his or her finances is not credible" ( Matter of Strella v. Ferro, 42 A.D.3d 544, 545, 841 N.Y.S.2d 118). Here, the record establishes that defendant consistently underreported his income as a plumber, and the testimony of defendant and documentary evidence presented at trial concerning his income was less than credible. For example, defendant failed to list any income on his 2007 Statement of Net Worth, despite the fact that he earned wages and collected employment benefits during that year. The $45,000 in imputed income was based upon the average salaries of plumbers as reported by the New York State Department of Labor, defendant's history of earnings, and the evidence that defendant worked "under the table." Inasmuch as
We further conclude that the court's maintenance award did not constitute an abuse of discretion ( see Oliver v. Oliver, 70 A.D.3d 1428,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lauzonis v. Lauzonis
...a court's imputation of income will not be disturbed so long as there is record support for its determination ( see Sharlow v. Sharlow, 77 A.D.3d 1430, 1431, 908 N.Y.S.2d 287;Juhasz, 59 A.D.3d at 1025, 873 N.Y.S.2d 799). Here, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in deter......
-
Monti v. DiBedendetto
...imputation of $103,310 in income to the father, and thus, the court properly denied the father's objections (see Sharlow v. Sharlow, 77 A.D.3d 1430, 1431, 908 N.Y.S.2d 287 ; Matter of Kasabian v. Chichester, 72 A.D.3d 1141, 1142, 898 N.Y.S.2d 293 ; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v.......
-
Anastasi v. Anastasi
...Johnson , 172 A.D.3d 1654, 1656, 101 N.Y.S.3d 497 [3d Dept. 2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Sharlow v. Sharlow , 77 A.D.3d 1430, 1431, 908 N.Y.S.2d 287 [4th Dept. 2010] ). Here, the court articulated its basis for determining defendant's annual income, which included averaging......
-
Lelekakis v. Kamamis
...NHT Owners, LLC, 79 A.D.3d 998, 1000, 914 N.Y.S.2d 238;see also Moyal v. Moyal, 85 A.D.3d 614, 615, 927 N.Y.S.2d 19;Sharlow v. Sharlow, 77 A.D.3d 1430, 1432, 908 N.Y.S.2d 287;National Bank of N.Am. v. Systems Home Improvement, 69 A.D.2d 557, 562–563, 419 N.Y.S.2d 606,affd.50 N.Y.2d 814, 430......