Szigyarto v. Szigyarto

• Decision Date: 14 February 1985
• Citation: 486 N.Y.S.2d 164,475 N.E.2d 777,64 N.Y.2d 275
• Parties: , 475 N.E.2d 777 Ileana SZIGYARTO, Appellant, v. Sam SZIGYARTO, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 164

486 N.Y.S.2d 164

64 N.Y.2d 275, 475 N.E.2d 777

Ileana SZIGYARTO, Appellant, v. Sam SZIGYARTO, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 14, 1985.

Lee H. Jacobs and Louis P. Jacobs, New York City, for appellant.

Phil Brown, Brooklyn, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

KAYE, Judge.

In the appeal before us, support payments deducted weekly from respondent father's wages pursuant to a payroll deduction order were apparently embezzled by the office manager and cannot be recovered from the employer. We are asked to determine, as between two parties not involved in the misappropriation, who must bear the loss--respondent, from whose salary weekly deductions were made, or his family, who did not receive this money. We conclude that respondent's support obligation was not discharged when the weekly deductions were made by his employer, and that his responsibility to contribute to the support of his family requires that he, and not the family, suffer the consequence of such a loss.

Respondent, Sam Szigyarto, failed to comply with an order of support in favor of appellant, Ileana Szigyarto, and their two minor children. After respondent defaulted on three consecutive support payments, the court in September 1980 entered a payroll deduction order pursuant to Personal Property Law § 49-b, requiring respondent's employer to withhold $70 from his weekly wages and transmit that sum to the court. ^* In January 1982, believing he had more than satisfied his obligation for arrears, respondent sought reduction of the weekly withholding. Only in the course of the ensuing proceedings did the parties learn that, while deductions had been made from respondent's paychecks, no money had in fact been transmitted to the court for approximately six months. Those amounts--totaling some $1,750--had apparently been converted by the office manager. Respondent's efforts to recover against his former employer, by then out of business, proved unsuccessful.

Before the Family Court on respondent's application to modify, both sides centered their arguments on the legal issue of whether the employer's withholding discharged the support obligation. Respondent urged, first, that by obtaining a payroll deduction order and thereby divesting him of control over these funds appellant in effect made his employer her agent and, second, that under statutory and case law the deductions terminated his obligation, citing CPLR 5231, Matter of Franklin Natl. Bank v. Lynch, 29 Misc.2d 1039, 213 N.Y.S.2d 948, and Schwartz Tire Corp. v. Gershon, 160 Misc. 439, 290 N.Y.S. 63. While rejecting these legal arguments, Family Court nonetheless held in respondent's favor, on the basis that the deductions, once made, were no longer money owed to the wage earner, and that "the equities lie with the respondent in that the payroll deduction on which he relied in good faith was made week after week * * * [Appellant's] proper remedy is to seek to recover illegally held funds from the employer and the errant office manager" (116 Misc.2d 742, 746, 456 N.Y.S.2d 344). The court further noted the fact of appellant's inaction and observed that if the defense of laches had been raised, that alone would bar appellant's recovery. The court reduced respondent's obligation by the disputed amount, and the Appellate Division affirmed, one Justice dissenting (100 A.D.2d 848, 473 N.Y.S.2d 760). We now reverse.

Recognizing the substantial public, as well as private, interest in enforcing compliance with support orders, the Legislature in 1958 supplemented available enforcement procedures (see, e.g., 12 Zett-Edmonds-Buttrey-Kaufman, N.Y.Civ.Prac., Family Ct. Proceedings p 15.12, p. 15-106; Family Ct. Act §§ 454, 457, 471; Domestic Relations Law §§ 243-244) with a streamlined mechanism for securing delinquent payments directly from a support debtor's employer through automatic salary deductions (see, Personal Property Law § 49-b, L.1958, ch. 659, § 1). By subsequent amendments, the Legislature added further force to this provision (see, L.1975, ch. 147, § 1; L.1977, ch. 516, § 27; L.1978, ch. 456, § 17) as part of a comprehensive strengthening of the State's child support program (see, e.g., L.1977, ch. 516; L.1978, ch. 456). The payroll deduction order allowed under section 49-b is plainly an additional--not exclusive--remedy for the beneficiary of a support order (see, Lo Cascio v. Lo Cascio, 101 Misc.2d 679, 682, 421 N.Y.S.2d 807); a petitioner need not first exhaust other remedies against the debtor (see, Villano v. Villano, 98 Misc.2d 774, 782, 414 N.Y.S.2d 625).

Personal Property Law § 49-b permits a court which entered a support order, upon a showing of good cause and without the need again to serve process on the support debtor, to order an employer to withhold from wages--even including pension funds--those amounts the court finds necessary for compliance with its order, as well as arrears. A prima facie case is established by proof that the party charged with support is delinquent in three payments, and unless the presumption is overcome through proof of the debtor's inability to make the payments the court must order an appropriate payroll deduction (Personal Property Law § 49-b[1][a]; see generally, Involuntary Wage Assignments: A New Approach for Effective Enforcement of Support Obligations, 11 Buffalo L Rev 396). The debtor's employer is then obligated to withhold the designated sums from its employee's salary and to transmit the deducted amounts directly to the agency designated by the court (see, Personal Property Law § 49-b[1][b] ). The Legislature has further underscored the primacy of family support orders by specifying that a wage assignment under section 49-b takes priority over other assignment or garnishment of moneys due or payable, except those mandated by law (Personal...