From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Ise-Smith, v. Orok-Edem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 2002
296 A.D.2d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-05919, 2001-05922, 2001-11094

Submitted May 17, 2002

July 1, 2002.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the father appeals from (1) an order of filiation of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated August 15, 2000, (2) an order of support of the same court (Shamahs, H.E.), dated March 22, 2001, which, after a hearing, directed him to pay $586.50 per month in child support, and (3) an order of the same court (Weinstein, J.), dated May 30, 2001, which denied his objections to the order of support.

Behrins Behrins, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Jonathan Behrins of counsel), for appellant.

SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated August 15, 2000, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated March 22, 2001, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated May 30, 2001, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the objections to the support order are sustained, the order dated March 22, 2001, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new determination in accordance herewith.

The appeal from the order of filiation dated August 15, 2000, must be dismised, as that order is not appealable as of right and leave to appeal has not been granted (see Matter of Department of Social Serv. v. Jay W., 105 A.D.2d 19, 28). In addition, the appeal from the order dated March 22, 2001, must be dismissed as no appeal lies therefrom (see Family Ct. Act § 439[e]). However, the issues raised on appeal from both of those orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the order dated May 30, 2001.

The Family Court improperly failed to deduct the appellant's self-employment tax contributions from his gross income before calculating his child support obligations (see Family Ct. Act § 413[b][5][vii][H]; Carlin v. Carlin, 217 A.D.2d 679, 680). Furthermore, the court improperly failed to deduct the appellant's payments to his accountant as business expenses (Matter of Barber v. Cahill, 240 A.D.2d 887, 889). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the appellant's child support obligation.

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Ise-Smith, v. Orok-Edem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 2002
296 A.D.2d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

In the Matter of Ise-Smith, v. Orok-Edem

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF PAMELA ISE-SMITH, respondent, v. EDMUND OROK-EDEM…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 1, 2002

Citations

296 A.D.2d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
745 N.Y.S.2d 461

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Orok-Edem v. Family Court

April 11, 2005. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the…

Edem v. State

June 15, 2010. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel…