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: Barbara MAURER, respondent, v. Robert MAURER, appellant.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Budd, J.), dated February 13, 2008, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Fields, S.M.), dated November 14, 2007, which, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for child support, including college expenses.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the mother's petition for child support. The Family Court properly determined each party's pro rata share of child support based on income below $80,000 (see Family Ct. Act § 413[1][c] ), declining to calculate the child support obligation based on the combined parental income in excess of $80,000, since the basic child support obligation derived by application of the statutory formula would not be unjust or inappropriate (see Family Ct. Act § 413[1] [f], [g]; Matter of Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649, 628 N.Y.S.2d 10, 651 N.E.2d 878; Matter of Awwad v. Awwad, 295 A.D.2d 603, 744 N.Y.S.2d 883). The Family Court also providently exercised its discretion in determining that the father shall contribute 50% of the subject child's college education costs based on comparable expenses for a SUNY school (see Family Ct. Act § 413[1][c][7]; Matter of Holliday v. Holliday, 35 A.D.3d 468, 828 N.Y.S.2d 96; Matter of McLoughlin v. McLoughlin, 213 A.D.2d 650, 624 N.Y.S.2d 221).
There is no support in the record for the father's contention that the Support Magistrate was biased against him. The parties had ample opportunity to present evidence at the hearing, and the Support Magistrate was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence proffered (see Matter of Donato v. Donato, 43 A.D.3d 920, 841 N.Y.S.2d 660).
The father's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or based on matter dehors the record and not properly before us.
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: December 02, 2008
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)