Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

Graves v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 4, 2001

284 A.D.2d 332; 725 N.Y.S.2d 367; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5644

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

N.B. v. J.D. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
Talero v. Talero (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Matter of Barmoha v. Eisayev (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Shvetsova v. Paderno (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Ripa v. Ripa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Piernick v. Nazinitsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Solis v. Marmolejos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Stanley v. Hain (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Westenberger v. Westenberger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Castillo v. Castillo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Ivani v. Ivani (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Hwang v. Hwang (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Andre v. Brumaire (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated June 1, 2000, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Clarke, H.E.), entered January 11, 2000, which, after a hearing, increased his child support obligation from a bi-weekly payment of $142 to a monthly payment of $578.84.

Ordered that the order dated June 1, 2000, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the issue of child support in accordance herewith.

The court erred in basing the amount of the child support obligation on the child’s needs. There is no basis for the court’s departure from the basic child support obligation as stated in Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (see, Murphy-Artale v *333Artale, 219 AD2d 587). Where the father’s 1998 reported income on his tax return was found to be suspect, the court was not bound by the actual reported income in applying the basic child support obligation, and instead could have used his actual earning capacity or imputed an amount onto the gross income reported in his tax return (see, Matter of Scomello v Scomello, 260 AD2d 483; Matter of Diamond v Diamond, 254 AD2d 288; Murphy-Artale v Artale, supra). Krausman, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.