From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Meyer v. Meyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 27, 1994
205 A.D.2d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

June 27, 1994

Appeal from the Family Court, Westchester County, Tolbert, J., Mrsich, H.E.


Ordered that the order entered June 15, 1992, is reversed, without costs or disbursements, the mother's objections to the order entered April 23, 1992, are sustained, the order entered April 23, 1992, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a new determination as to child support in accordance with the Child Support Standards Act (Family Ct Act § 413), and for a determination of arrears, if any.

We agree with the Family Court that the father's loss of employment constituted a change of circumstances which warranted a downward modification of his child support obligation (see, Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132; Matter of Glinski v Glinski, 199 A.D.2d 994; Matter of Preischel v. Preischel, 193 A.D.2d 1118; Dowd v. Dowd, 178 A.D.2d 330). The evidence in the record supports the Hearing Examiner's finding that the father lost his job through no fault of his own and had diligently sought reemployment in his field. The father's child support obligation of $1,650 a month was based on his annual salary of $110,000, and, at the time of the hearing, he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits.

Effective July 25, 1990, application of the guidelines in the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) (Family Ct Act § 413) is mandatory, rather than permissive, in modification applications (see, Matter of Alice C. v. Bernard G.C., 193 A.D.2d 97; Matter of Howard v. Howard, 186 A.D.2d 132; Matter of Rathbun v Winchell, 183 A.D.2d 948; Family Ct Act § 413 [b] [1]). There is nothing in the record to indicate that the court applied the CSSA guidelines in setting the father's child support obligation at $50 a month, and, in particular, whether it considered other sources of income which could be imputed to the father in light of his significant assets (see, Family Ct Act § 413 [b] [5]). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for recalculation of the child support award pursuant to the CSSA guidelines. Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Meyer v. Meyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 27, 1994
205 A.D.2d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Meyer v. Meyer

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MICHAEL MEYER, Respondent, v. ROBERTA MEYER, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 27, 1994

Citations

205 A.D.2d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
614 N.Y.S.2d 42

Citing Cases

Severino, v. Serverino

The plaintiff also alleged that at some point the defendant had received a lump sum benefit of approximately…

Ritchey v. Ritchey

change in circumstances" ( Klein v Klein, 74 AD3d 753; see Schlakman v Schlakman, 38 AD3d 640; Praeger v…