Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Gregory HEALY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Desiree HEALY, Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered March 23, 2007, which denied plaintiff husband's motion for a downward modification of his spousal maintenance and child support awards, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Following a trial in August of 2005, judgment was entered in February 2007, awarding defendant wife, among other things, a divorce on her counterclaim, custody of the couple's five children, $2,750 in spousal maintenance per month and $2,631 in child support per month. Plaintiff was represented by counsel at trial, and he promptly moved pro se for a downward modification after entry of judgment. At trial, his 2005 income tax return was admitted into evidence, indicating a substantial decrease in earnings. The court never indicated it was imputing income to plaintiff based on an attempt to avoid obligations or hide income. Accordingly, it was required to consider plaintiff's latest income tax return in determining the child-support award (Family Ct. Act § 413[1][b][5][i]; Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][b][5][i]; see Miller v. Miller, 18 A.D.3d 629, 631, 796 N.Y.S.2d 97 [2005] ), rather than income-averaging his reported income from 2001 to 2004 (see Wallach v. Wallach, 37 A.D.3d 707, 708-709, 831 N.Y.S.2d 210 [2007] ). Plaintiff's most recent tax return should also have been considered in determining the appropriate award for spousal maintenance.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 22, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)