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.
William DAVID, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Onilda CRUZ, Defendant–Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered on or about August 10, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, upon renewal of plaintiff's cross motion to enforce a settlement agreement, partially granted the cross motion, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the cross motion denied in its entirety.
An agreement purporting to opt out of the basic child support obligations set forth in the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) must “include a provision stating that the parties have been advised of the provisions of [the CSSA],” must specify the amount that the basic child support obligation would have been, and the reason or reasons for the deviation (Family Court Act § 413[1] [h]; Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][h]; see Baranek v. Baranek, 54 A.D.3d 789, 864 N.Y.S.2d 94 [2d Dept 2008], lv dismissed 14 N.Y.3d 903 [2010] ).
“Such provision may not be waived by either party or counsel” (Family Court Act § 413[1][h]; Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][h]; see Blaikie v. Mortner, 274 A.D.2d 95, 99–101, 713 N.Y.S.2d 148 [1st Dept 2000]; Matter of Burnside v. Somerville, 202 A.D.2d 1064, 609 N.Y.S.2d 127 [4th Dept 1994] ).
Here, both the settlement agreement and the subject order effectuating it failed to recite that the parties were aware of the CSSA guidelines, failed to set forth the basic child support obligation, and failed to set forth the reasons for deviating from the guidelines (see Family Court Act § 413[1] [h]; Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][h]; Baranek, 54 A.D.3d at 790–791, 864 N.Y.S.2d 94; Matter of Michelle W. v. Forrest James P., 218 A.D.2d 175, 637 N.Y.S.2d 538 [4th Dept 1996] ).
Although the invalidity of a child support provision does not necessarily invalidate the agreement in its entirety (see e.g. Cimons v. Cimons, 53 A.D.3d 125, 129, 861 N.Y.S.2d 88 [2d Dept 2008] ), the agreement at issue cannot be salvaged by deeming it divisible for partial illegality and severing and enforcing the provisions that do not pertain to child support. The provisions pertaining to child support constituted the main objective of the agreement, or the bargained-for consideration inducing defendant to agree to the remainder of the agreement, including the injunctive provisions (see e.g. Georgia Props., Inc. v. Dalsimer, 39 A.D.3d 332, 334, 835 N.Y.S.2d 41 [1st Dept 2005]; cf. Baranek, 54 AD3d at 791).
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: February 19, 2013
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)