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.
IN RE: Proceeding, etc., COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES, on Behalf of Leslie A. DAEDA, Petitioner-Respondent, v. John Lawrence MONICA, Respondent-Appellant.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Richard N. Ross, J.), entered on or about June 13, 2001, which, inter alia, confirmed the Hearing Examiner's finding, in his decision and findings of fact dated April 9, 2001, that respondent willfully violated the underlying order of support, and order, same court (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about October 4, 2001, which denied respondent's objections to the Hearing Examiner's findings, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of remanding the matter to Family Court for a determination of the reasonable value to respondent of the apartment he occupied as a caretaker, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
In the absence of any reliable records of respondent's actual employment income or evidence of genuine and sustained efforts to secure gainful employment, income was properly imputed (see Matter of Collins v. Collins, 241 A.D.2d 725, 727, 659 N.Y.S.2d 955, appeal dismissed and lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 829, 666 N.Y.S.2d 560, 689 N.E.2d 530). In calculating respondent's support obligation, the Hearing Examiner properly imputed earnings to respondent, a tile setter with 14 years of experience, at the median income for the trade, as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
However, the Hearing Examiner incorrectly counted as income the market rental value of the apartment in which respondent resides, rather than its reasonable value to him. Respondent is not a tenant of the apartment, entitled to all of the rights that a leasehold interest entails, but occupies the premises merely as a caretaker for the tenant, a personal friend. Thus, a better measure of imputed income is the value of the temporary residence in addition to, or in lieu of, remuneration for respondent's custodial services.
Finally, in view of respondent's election to pay debts owed to the same friend rather than child support, his violation of the child support order was properly found to be willful (see Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 70, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154).
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: August 05, 2004
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)