From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Diamond v. Diamond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 14, 2004
11 A.D.3d 289 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

4277

October 14, 2004.

Judgment of divorce, Bronx County (La Tia W. Martin, J.), entered on or about November 18, 2003, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, directed defendant to pay plaintiff child support retroactive to plaintiff's request therefor, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to delete the directives relating to the amount of the arrears and their payment and to remand the matter for further findings with respect thereto, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.


The trial court properly applied the statutory three-step formula in determining the basic child support obligation in this joint custody context ( see Bast v. Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723). However, given the extended amount of time between plaintiff's request for child support and the court's award thereof, calculation of retroactive amounts should not have been based on the parties' income for the latest year for which there was evidence, but on their actual income for the retroactive years in question ( see Matter of Kalapodas v. Kalapodas, 305 AD2d 1047, 1048). Accordingly, we remand for further findings with respect to the award of arrears.


Summaries of

Diamond v. Diamond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 14, 2004
11 A.D.3d 289 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Diamond v. Diamond

Case Details

Full title:MODESTA L. DIAMOND, Respondent, v. ALEX M. DIAMOND, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 14, 2004

Citations

11 A.D.3d 289 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
782 N.Y.S.2d 719

Citing Cases

Kahn v. Oshin-Kahn

Even if less weight is given to 2002 income on the ground that the period at issue did not begin until…

Coull v. Rottman

92; when calculating plaintiff's credit, the IAS court apparently overlooked the fact that he had paid $2,750…