Divorce: New York

Divorce: New York

Tag Archives: Formula

C.S.S.A. Recitiation Requirements Relaxed for In-Court Child Support Sipulation

Posted in Child Support (C.S.S.A.)
The required C.S.S.A. recitation in an oral open-court stipulation by which the parties explain why they have agreed to a child support obligation varying from the presumptive C.S.S.A. formula may not have to be as “precise” as that required in a written stipulation. Such appears to be the holding of the Appellate Division, Second Department, … Continue Reading

Imputing Income When Determining Child Support

Posted in Child Support (C.S.S.A.)
Three Second Department decisions within eight days this month reveal the discretion of the trial court when income is not apparent (no pun intended) on a determination of a parent’s basic child support obligation. In Fein v. Fein, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the determination of Westchester County Supreme Court Justice Bruce E. Tolbert to impute … Continue Reading

Settlement Agreement’s Failure to Include C.S.S.A. Recitation Invalidates Entire Agreement

Posted in Agreements and Stipulations, Child Support (C.S.S.A.)
The First Department, in its February 19, 2013 decision in David v. Cruz, threw out an entire settlement agreement because of its failure to include  language required by the Child Support Standards Act. The C.S.S.A. sets out a presumptive formula for the calculation of a parent’s child support obligation. Parents are free to agree to … Continue Reading

Temporary Maintenance Awards and Marital Residence Carrying Charges: Justice Jackman Brown Weighs In

Posted in Child Support (C.S.S.A.), Maintenance, Temporary (Pendente Lite) Relief
Two decisions last month of Queens County Supreme Court Justice Pam Jackman Brown provide insights on how courts might cope with the overlap of the statutory temporary maintenance formula and the payment of marital residence carrying charges. Yesterdays blog reported upon the Second Department’s November 21, 2012 agreement in Woodford v. Woodford with the First Department in Khaira v. Khaira … Continue Reading

Temporary Maintenance Awards Cover Marital Residence Carrying Charges, the Second Department Agrees

Posted in Maintenance, Temporary (Pendente Lite) Relief
The statutory temporary maintenance formula is intended to include the portion of marital residence carrying costs attributable to the nonmonied spouse. So concluded the Appellate Division, Second Department in its November 21, 2012 decision in Woodford v. Woodford. Accordingly, the appellate court vacated so much of Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice James F. Quinn’s July 15, 2011 … Continue Reading

Appellate Decision Clarifies Temporary Maintenance Calculations; Temporary Child Support Awards Must Be Next

Posted in Child Support (C.S.S.A.), Maintenance, Temporary (Pendente Lite) Relief
In the first appellate decision to apply the October 12, 2010 temporary maintenance amendment to the Domestic Relations Law, it was held that the recipient’s share of marital residence carrying charges is within the temporary maintenance award, itself. It was improper to have the payor spouse pay carrying costs directly in exhange for a credit against income … Continue Reading

Spousal Maintenance Statute Difficulties Noted by New York’s Law Revision Commission

Posted in Maintenance, Temporary (Pendente Lite) Relief
On October 25, 2011 the New York State Law Revision Commission held a round-table discussion to review New York’s spousal support, i.e. “maintenance” statute, Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(5-a, 6). The discussion precedes a final report which that Commission is required to render under a mandate imposed by the Legislature when new laws concerning temporary maintenance, interim counsel fees and … Continue Reading

Court Tempers Temporary Maintenance Formula and Temporary Child Support with Reality Check

Posted in Child Support (C.S.S.A.), Counsel Fees, Maintenance, Temporary (Pendente Lite) Relief
In this second of two blogs discussing Supreme Court Nassau County Justice Anthony J. Falanga‘s March 28, 2011 decision in A.C. v. D.R., we look at the Court’s temporary financial relief rulings under the recent amendments to D.R.L. §§236B(5-a) and 237. Last Monday’s blog discussed the joinder for trial of the wife’s post-no-fault action with the husband’s pre-no-fault … Continue Reading