Slankard v. Chahinian
| Decision Date | 16 May 1994 |
| Citation | 204 A.D.2d 529,611 N.Y.S.2d 300 |
| Parties | Marjorie SLANKARD, etc., Respondent-Appellant, v. Philippe CHAHINIAN, Appellant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Cherico and Stix, White Plains (Wayne P. Stix, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Bender & Bodnar, White Plains, for respondent-appellant.
Before BALLETTA, J.P., and MILLER, LAWRENCE and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated August 31, 1985, the defendant former husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered July 31, 1992, as granted the motion of the plaintiff former wife, for, inter alia, attorney's fees, experts' fees, and an upward modification of child support payments, and the former wife cross-appeals, from so much of the same order as limited the award for attorney's fees and upward modification of child support.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the sixteenth, nineteenth, and twenty-sixth decretal paragraphs thereof; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new determination with respect to child support in accordance herewith; and it is further,
ORDERED that, in the interim, the former husband shall pay the former wife child support in the amount of $220 per week.
The court erroneously determined, without explanation, that the former wife's 1991 income was $70,000, when she admitted that her income in that year was $75,000. Thus, the court's computation of child support pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240) was in error since it applied the $70,000 figure in calculating the wife's proportionate share of the parties' child support obligations.
The court also erred when it subtracted child care expenses from the basic child support amount and when it directed that the former husband and the former wife bear 15% and 85% of this cost, respectively. Where, as here, the custodial parent is working, child care expenses "shall be prorated in the same proportion as each parent's income is to the combined parental income [and e]ach parent's pro rata share of the child care expenses shall be separately stated and added to the [amount]" of basic child support calculated under the Child Support Standards Act (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][c][4].
It was error to deduct the son's psychiatric care expenses from the basic child support amount and to direct that the former husband and the former wife bear 60% and 40% of this expense, respectively. "The court shall prorate each parent's share of future reasonable health care expenses of the child not covered by insurance in the same proportion as each parent's income is to the combined parental income". (Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][c][5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re Pinkesz
-
LaPorta v. LaPorta
...and counsel fees based on the statutory factors and articulable findings (see, O'Brien v. O'Brien, supra; Slankard v. Chahinian, 204 A.D.2d 529, 531, 611 N.Y.S.2d 300; Jabri v. Jabri, supra; Harmon v. Harmon, supra; Parks v. Parks, 159 A.D.2d 841, 842, 552 N.Y.S.2d Finally, contrary to the ......
-
Sicurelli v. Sicurelli
...respective incomes (see, Domestic Relations Law §240[1-b][c][5]; Frei v Pearson, 244 A.D.2d 454; Ames v Ames, 212 A.D.2d 653; Slankard v Chahinian, 204 A.D.2d 529). Here, since the parties' incomes are similar, those expenses are allocated so that the defendant pays 53.5% and the plaintiff ......
- Silber v. Silber