Child Support Awards Over the Income Cap
Where the combined parental income exceeds the "income cap," the test in the First and Second Departments is whether the child is receiving enough to meet his or her "actual needs and the amount required to live an appropriate lifestyle." In contrast, the Third and Fourth Departments have held that where the combined parental income is well in excess of the income cap, it is proper to consider and base the award upon the child's "actual reasonable needs."
April 08, 2022 at 12:00 PM
11 minute read
Domestic Relations Law §240(1-b) and its counterpart, Family Court Act §413(1), are known as the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA). The Child Support Standards Act contains a rebuttable presumption that the application of its guidelines which result in the "basic child support obligation" will yield the correct amount of child support. This presumption may be rebutted, and the basic child support obligation adjusted, where the court finds that the non-custodial parent's support obligation is "unjust or inappropriate."
Before the passage of the Child Support Standards Act, the common law "doctrine of necessaries" entitled the child to support in accordance with the fathers' "condition and station in life." Garlock v. Garlock, 279 N.Y. 337 (1939); De Brauwere v. De Brauwere, 203 N.Y. 460 (1911)). Today, this obligation is reciprocal. Medical Business Associates v. Steiner, 183 A.D.2d 86 (2d Dep't 1992); Our Lady of Lourdes Memorial Hosp. v. Frey, 152 A.D.2d 73 (3d Dep't 1989). Although the obligation is reciprocal, the necessaries doctrine has not been changed as a matter of common law. Lichtman v. Grossbard, 73 N.Y.2d 792 (1988).
The Child Support Standards Act, which was enacted in 1989, replaced a needs-based discretionary system with a "precisely articulated three-step method for determining child support." Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Services ex rel. Day v. Day, 96 N.Y.2d 149 (2001).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Deluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
4 minute read
Are New York City Housing Providers Ready for the Fair Chance for Housing Act?
10 minute read
Unpaid Real Estate Taxes; License To Enter Adjoining Property: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
The Corporate Transparency Act: One Year Later With Deadline Looming
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1King & Spalding E-Discovery Director Jumps to Nebraska Women-Owned Firm
- 2Nation's Largest Utility Parts Ways With CLO Who Helped It Navigate Bribery Scandal
- 3Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 4From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 5Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
