Hunt v. Hunt

Full title: Melissa Hunt, appellant, v. Michael Hunt, respondent.

Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Dec 23, 2015

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2015-00661

12-23-2015

Melissa Hunt, appellant, v. Michael Hunt, respondent.

Debra P. Marin, Ossining, NY, for appellant. Santoro & Scigliano, Carmel, NY (Sarah R. Scigliano of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P.

THOMAS A. DICKERSON

SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX

JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ. (Index No. 1944/08)

Debra P. Marin, Ossining, NY, for appellant.

Santoro & Scigliano, Carmel, NY (Sarah R. Scigliano of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Victor G. Grossman, J.), dated December 8, 2014. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff child support in the sum of $1,647 per month and incorporated a summer access order.

ORDERED that the judgment of divorce is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In this matrimonial action, after a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Francis A. Nicolai, J.) issued a decision dated October 2, 2013, which, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff child support in the sum of $2,449.50 per month. In an order dated July 17, 2014, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(b) to modify the child support provision, reducing the child support awarded to the plaintiff to the sum of $1,647 per month. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the judgment entered upon the order.

The Supreme Court properly considered the parties' shared custody arrangement in granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(b) to modify the decision dated October 2, 2013, so as to reduce his basic child support obligation (see Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723, 730-732; Ochs v Ochs, 40 AD3d 1061, 1062; Gainey v Gainey, 303 AD2d 628).

Moreover, in calculating the parties respective child support obligations, the Supreme Court properly used the parties' income as reported on their most recent federal income tax return (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][b][5][i]; Matter of Krukenkamp v Krukenkamp, 54 AD3d 345, 346).

The plaintiff's contention with respect to the summer access order is without merit.

DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, HINDS-RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court