Opinion
2018–00128 Docket No. F–2883–93/17D
11-28-2018
In the Matter of Arthur ADINOLFI, Appellant, v. Colleen CALLANAN, Respondent.
Arthur Adinolfi, Napanoch, NY, appellant pro se.
Arthur Adinolfi, Napanoch, NY, appellant pro se.
SHERI S. ROMAN, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the order dated October 24, 2017, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The father and mother have three children together. They were divorced in 1991, and the father was ordered to pay $150 in weekly child support. By an order dated September 20, 2006, the Family Court granted the father's application to terminate his child support obligation retroactive to May 14, 2004, the date on which the parties' youngest living child reached the age of majority. Subsequently, the father filed a petition to modify his accrued child support arrears. By order dated July 28, 2017, the Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petition without a hearing, and by order dated October 24, 2017, the Family Court denied the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's order. The father appeals.
Family Court Act § 451(1) provides that the court "shall not reduce or annul child support arrears accrued prior to the making of an application pursuant to this section." A court " ‘ha[s] no discretion to reduce or cancel arrears of child support which accrue before an application for downward modification of the child support obligation’ " ( Matter of Gardner v. Maddine , 112 A.D.3d 926, 927, 977 N.Y.S.2d 745, quoting Grossman v. Composto–Longhi , 96 A.D.3d 1000, 1002, 948 N.Y.S.2d 95 ; see Matter of Dox v. Tynon , 90 N.Y.2d 166, 173–174, 659 N.Y.S.2d 231, 681 N.E.2d 398 ; Matter of Weintrob v. Weintrob , 87 A.D.3d 749, 751, 929 N.Y.S.2d 865 ; Matter of Fisher v. Nathan , 83 A.D.3d 938, 939, 920 N.Y.S.2d 726 ). Moreover, "[c]hild support arrears must be awarded in full, regardless of whether the defaulter has good cause for having failed to seek modification prior to their accumulation" ( Matter of Dox v. Tynon , 90 N.Y.2d at 174, 659 N.Y.S.2d 231, 681 N.E.2d 398 [emphasis omitted] ).
We agree with the Family Court's determination denying the father's objections. A reduction or vacatur of arrears that accrued prior to May 14, 2004, was prohibited pursuant to Family Court Act § 451(1), because those arrears accrued before the father made his application to terminate his child support obligation (see Matter of Dox v. Tynon , 90 N.Y.2d 166, 659 N.Y.S.2d 231, 681 N.E.2d 398 ).The father's remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit.
ROMAN, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.