Scarduzio v. Ryan
Opinion of the Court
Here, it is undisputed that the child care expenses had decreased significantly since the order of support had been issued, due to the child attending school full time. Accordingly, the father should only be required to pay his share of the child care expenses actually incurred by the mother commencing January 7, 2010, the date that the father filed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation (see Shanon v Patterson, 294 AD2d 485 [2002]; McBride v McBride, 238 AD2d 320 [1997]).
We reject the father’s argument that the costs of the after-school program and summer camp in which the child is enrolled do not qualify as child care expenses. The father has offered no evidence to refute the mother’s contention that these programs provide care for the child while she is at work. Accordingly, those programs qualify as child care expenses consistent with the purpose of Family Court Act § 413 (1) (c) (4).
We remit the matter to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a hearing to determine the amount of child care expenses actually incurred by the mother commencing January 7, 2010, and for the recalculation of arrears. Skelos, J.E, Belen, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.