Opinion
February 2, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Kuszynski, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as an exercise of discretion and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff, in accordance with the following memorandum: Based on our assessment of the parties' circumstances, in accordance with the factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (7), we conclude that Supreme Court's child support award was inadequate (see, Lang v Downey, 113 A.D.2d 1013 ; Durso v Durso, 106 A.D.2d 608). At the time of the parties' divorce, there was a gross disparity between the financial resources of defendant and those of plaintiff (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [7] [a] [1]). In 1984 defendant had gross earnings of over $122,000 from his expanding law practice, while plaintiff was a full-time student. Further, before the divorce the children enjoyed a lavish standard of living which will be markedly diminished by the court's support award (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [7] [a] [3]). We, therefore, increase the child support award for the period February 1, 1985 to December 31, 1986 from $50 to $100 per week per child, and commencing January 1, 1987, from $100 to $150 per week per child. Further, defendant is directed to pay $50 per week toward the resulting child support arrearage.
We further find that Supreme Court erred in failing to grant plaintiff judgment for maintenance and child support arrears of $995 for the period May 1, 1983 to July 1, 1983 and $2,500 for the period September 1983 to November 1, 1983. The record establishes that defendant failed to make those payments. Defendant, however, contends that the arrears should be forgiven due to plaintiff restricting his visitation beginning in September 1983. During that period, defendant attempted to undermine the relationship between his daughter, Marni, and her mother, causing his daughter significant emotional trauma. Given those circumstances, plaintiff properly restricted defendant's visitation from September 1983 to January 1984. We, therefore, find no basis to cancel defendant's maintenance and support arrears which accrued during those periods pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 241. Plaintiff is therefore granted a judgment for support arrears in the sum of $3,495.
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining contentions and find no basis to disturb Supreme Court's determinations.