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.
Sylvia ERLICH, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Ron ERLICH, Respondent-Appellant.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2002, which denied respondent former husband's objections to the Hearing Examiner's order, entered on or about December 21, 2001, finding that respondent owes petitioner former wife a balance of $40,274.09 in maintenance and child support arrears on outstanding judgments, plus $8318.38 in new arrears, for a total of $48,592.47, to be paid by respondent, if employed, at a rate that would reduce his annual income to $34,380.50, unanimously modified, on the facts, to reduce the total arrears on outstanding judgments to $40,040, and raise the amount to which respondent's annual income may be reduced to $36,575, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Family Court accorded appropriate deference to the Hearing Examiner's findings, which were based largely on credibility (see Matter of Sledge v. Sledge, 228 A.D.2d 310, 644 N.Y.S.2d 198). We reject respondent's contention that the prior Maryland income deduction order, which excluded arrears attributable to the children's health care and educational expenses, precludes enforcement of such obligations in New York, which has continuing jurisdiction of the matter (see Matter of Parenzan v. Parenzan, 285 A.D.2d 59, 727 N.Y.S.2d 163, lv. dismissed 97 N.Y.2d 700, 739 N.Y.S.2d 100, 765 N.E.2d 303; Matter of Shafer v. Martin, 287 A.D.2d 825, 826, 731 N.Y.S.2d 291). As the Hearing Examiner found, the Maryland order simply reflects Maryland law, which does not provide for such obligations in a child support order, and did not purport to adjudicate petitioner's right thereto under the New York judgments. We modify the total amount of arrears awarded under outstanding judgments to reflect the amount sought. We also modify to correct an arithmetic error in calculating the amount below which an income deduction order may not reduce respondent's annual income based on the federal poverty income guidelines. We have considered respondent's other contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 19, 2003
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)