Matter of Napoli v. Koller
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Decillis v. Decillis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Picone v. Golio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Levin v. Blum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Scheppy v. Kelly-Scheppy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Matter of Peddycoart v. MacKay (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Matter of Goldstein v. Lika (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Matter of Sinzieri v. Kaminsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Matter of Coughlan v. Coughlan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Matter of Spano v. Spano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Feliciano v. Elghouayel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Gao v. Ming Min Fan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Sanders v. Sanders (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
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
*1071 Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Joseph A. Egitto, J.), dated May 14, 2015. The order denied the father’s objections to an order of that court (Jeanne M. Patsalos, S.M.), dated February 18, 2015, which, after a hearing, imputed income to him in the amount of $46,609.68 for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation.
Ordered that the order dated May 14, 2015, is affirmed, with costs.
A support magistrate need not rely upon a party’s account of his or her own finances, but may impute income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated earning potential (see Matter of Rohme v Burns, 92 AD3d 946, 947 [2012]; Matter of Strella v Ferro, 42 AD3d 544, 546 [2007]). The support magistrate may impute income to a party based on his or her employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or “money, goods, or services provided by relatives and friends” (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [iv]; see Matter of Funaro v Kudrick, 128 AD3d 695 [2015]; Baumgardner v Baumgardner, 98 AD3d 929, 930-931 [2012]). A support magistrate “is afforded considerable discretion in determining whether to impute income to a parent” (Matter of Julianska v Majewski, 78 AD3d 1182, 1183 [2010]), and we accord deference to a support magistrate’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Kameneva v Hughes, 138 AD3d 854 [2016]; Matter of Rubenstein v Rubenstein, 114 AD3d 798 [2014]; Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v Yang, 89 AD3d 946 [2011]).
Here, the Support Magistrate properly imputed income to the father based upon his prior income, his training, his choice to pursue only part-time employment, and his current living arrangement, in which he did not pay rent (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [iv]; see Matter of Funaro v Kudrick, 128 AD3d 695 [2015]; Matter of Rohme v Burns, 92 AD3d at 947; Matter of Strella v Ferro, 42 AD3d at 546). The father’s remaining contention is without merit. Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s findings.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.