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: Brian HUSCH, respondent, v. Maureen HUSCH, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)
IN RE: Maureen Husch, appellant, v. Brian Husch, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Paul M. Hensley, J.), dated November 25, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the mother's objections to so much of an order of the same court (Darlene Jorif–Mangane, S.M.) dated August 12, 2022, made after a hearing, as (1) granted the father's petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation to the extent of reducing his child support obligation to the sum of $7,853 per month, (2) directed that the father's maintenance obligation shall terminate after the occurrence of any of the conditions enumerated in Family Court Act § 412(10), (3) directed the father to pay child support arrears in the sum of only $117,795, and (4) directed the father to pay arrears for add-on expenses in the sum of only $39,012.07.
ORDERED that the order dated November 25, 2022, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The parties were married and had five children together. Pursuant to a judgment of divorce dated November 9, 2020, which incorporated but did not merge the parties’ separation agreement dated March 3, 2017, the father was obligated to pay the mother the sums of $10,416.67 per month in child support and $14,583.33 per month in maintenance, in addition to certain add-on expenses related to, inter alia, the children's medical care, child care, and college expenses.
Thereafter, the father filed a petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation, and the mother filed a petition alleging that the father violated the child support and maintenance provisions of the separation agreement and the judgment of divorce. After a hearing, in an order dated August 12, 2022, the Support Magistrate, among other things, granted the father's petition to the extent of reducing his child support obligation to the sum of $7,853 per month, directed that the father's maintenance obligation shall terminate after the occurrence of any of the conditions enumerated in Family Court Act § 412(10), and directed the father to pay child support arrears in the sum of $117,795 and arrears for add-on expenses in the sum of $39,012.07.
Thereafter, the mother filed objections to the Support Magistrate's order. In an order dated November 25, 2022, the Family Court, inter alia, denied the mother's objections to so much of the Support Magistrate's order as reduced the father's child support obligation to the sum of $7,853 per month, directed that the father's maintenance obligation shall terminate after the occurrence of any of the conditions enumerated in Family Court Act § 412(10), and directed the father to pay child support arrears in the sum of only $117,795 and arrears for add-on expenses in the sum of only $39,012.07. The mother appeals.
Upon the emancipation of the parties’ eldest child, the Support Magistrate correctly calculated the father's reduced monthly child support obligation pursuant to the terms of the separation agreement (see Mater of Yuen v. Sindhwani, 137 A.D.3d 1155, 1157, 28 N.Y.S.3d 102). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother's objection to so much of the Support Magistrate's order as reduced the father's child support obligation to the sum of $7,853 per month (see Matter of Petrushka v. Abizadeh, 202 A.D.3d 1088, 1089, 159 N.Y.S.3d 891).
Furthermore, the Family Court properly denied the mother's objection to the Support Magistrate's calculation of arrears for add-on expenses. The mother failed to address the Support Magistrate's findings that certain of her receipts were not dated or did not contain sufficient identifying information, and therefore, her objection was not specific within the meaning of Family Court Act § 439(e) (see Matter of Licitra v. Licitra, 219 A.D.3d 837, 838, 195 N.Y.S.3d 501).
The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of the foregoing.
LASALLE, P.J., CHAMBERS, TAYLOR and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.
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.
Docket No: 2022-10598
Decided: February 13, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)