IN RE ANNETTE PEREL, petres, v. DANIEL MICHAEL GONZALEZ, res-res

9809. IN RE ANNETTE PEREL, petres, v. DANIEL MICHAEL GONZALEZ, res-res — Port & Sava, Garden City (George S. Sava of counsel), for ap — Segal & Greenberg LLP, New York (Philip C. Segal of counsel), for res — Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2012, which denied respondent's objection to the Support Magistrate's imputation to him of income based on the full market value of his employer-provided apartment, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 26, 2010, which denied his objections to the parts of the Support Magistrate's order of support that required him to pay child support in the amount of $476.49 per week, applied the child support percentage to the parties' combined income above the $130,000 statutory cap, and required respondent to pay his pro rata share of the child's private prekindergarten tuition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9809. IN RE ANNETTE PEREL, petres, v. DANIEL MICHAEL GONZALEZ, res-res — Port & Sava, Garden City (George S. Sava of counsel), for ap — Segal & Greenberg LLP, New York (Philip C. Segal of counsel), for res — Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2012, which denied respondent’s objection to the Support Magistrate’s imputation to him of income based on the full market value of his employer-provided apartment, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 26, 2010, which denied his objections to the parts of the Support Magistrate’s order of support that required him to pay child support in the amount of $476.49 per week, applied the child support percentage to the parties’ combined income above the $130,000 statutory cap, and required respondent to pay his pro rata share of the child’s private prekindergarten tuition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly determined the parties’ income for purposes of calculating their basic child support obligations (see Family Court Act §413[1][b][3], [c]; Matter of Cassano v. Cassano, 85 NY2d 649 [1995]). The record supports the Support Magistrate’s determinations of respondent’s income based on his 2008 annual gross income and the value of his employer-provided apartment and petitioner’s income based on her 2008 annual gross income and her previous full-time employment as a concierge.

IN RE ANNETTE PEREL, petres, v. DANIEL MICHAEL GONZALEZ, res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal