Opinion
2015-00661 Index No. 1944/08.
12-23-2015
Melissa HUNT, appellant, v. Michael HUNT, respondent.
Debra P. Marin, Ossining, N.Y., for appellant. Santoro & Scigliano, Carmel, N.Y. (Sarah R. Scigliano of counsel), for respondent.
Debra P. Marin, Ossining, N.Y., for appellant.
Santoro & Scigliano, Carmel, N.Y. (Sarah R. Scigliano of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
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 N.Y.2d 723, 730–732, 675 N.Y.S.2d 19, 697 N.E.2d 1009; Ochs v. Ochs, 40 A.D.3d 1061, 1062, 837 N.Y.S.2d 290; Gainey v. Gainey, 303 A.D.2d 628, 756 N.Y.S.2d 647).
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 § 2401–b[b] 5[i]; Matter of Krukenkamp v. Krukenkamp, 54 A.D.3d 345, 346, 862 N.Y.S.2d 571).
The plaintiff's contention with respect to the summer access order is without merit.
DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, HINDS–RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.