Opinion
May 27, 1997
Appeal from the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 11, 1995, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated February 14, 1996, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated February 14, 1996, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly determined that the Hearing Examiner abused his discretion by choosing to deviate from the application of the CSSA percentage formula in fixing the father's support obligation. A rebuttable presumption exists that the amount of child support calculated under the statutory guidelines is correct (see, Family Ct Act § 413[a]; 42 U.S.C. § 667 [b]; see also, Matter of Graby v. Graby, 87 N.Y.2d 605, 610). The presumption may be rebutted, and the support obligation adjusted, upon the court's finding that the non-custodial parent's support obligation is "unjust or inappropriate" (Family Ct Act § 413[f]; 42 U.S.C. § 667; see also, Matter of Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649, 653). Considering the 10 factors set forth in Family Court Act § 413(1)(f), we agree with the Family Court that the father's support obligation was not "unjust or inappropriate".
The Family Court properly granted the mother's application for arrears to the date of the filing of the petition, as mandated by Family Court Act § 449.
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
Miller, J.P., Ritter, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.