Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

Crosby v. Hickey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 21, 2001

289 A.D.2d 1013; 734 N.Y.S.2d 786; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12650

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Allan T. v. Debra D. (Oswego Family Court 2004)
Matter of Jones v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
K.W. v. M.W. (NYC Family Court 2012)
Bianchi v. Breakell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Stanley v. Hain (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Matter of G.A. v. E.P. (Onondaga Family Court 2007)
Matter of D.M.G. v. M.L.B. (Onondaga Family Court 2006)
J.A.E. v. A.B. (NYC Family Court 2005)
Matter of J.A. v. A.B. (Ulster Family Court 2005)
Reach v. Reach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Pringle v. Pringle (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

Order unanimously af*1014firmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent contends that Family Court improperly imputed an annual income of $14,754 to her in computing child support. We disagree. The record establishes that respondent left her last employment voluntarily, after earning slightly more than $7,000 in the first five or six months of 1997.,A voluntary decision by a parent to reduce his or her income is not a change of circumstances warranting the reduction of a child support obligation (see, Matter of Diamond v Diamond, 254 AD2d 288). “Child support is determined by the parents’ ability to provide for their child rather than their current economic situation” (Matter of Zwick v Kulhan, 226 AD2d 734). Respondent failed to establish that she “is not presently capable of earning at the level [s]he reached prior to [her voluntary] termination” (Matter of Cattaraugus County Commr. of Social Servs. v Bund, 259 AD2d 973, 974). Respondent failed to preserve for our review her contention that the court erred in failing to apply the self-support reserve to her imputed annual income in computing child support. In any event, that contention is without merit. Respondent failed to establish that she is in need of funds for self-support (see, Matter of Meyers v Cicci, 233 AD2d 723). (Appeal from Order of Steuben County Family Court, Latham, J. — Support.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

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