Summary
In Matter of Winn v. Baker (2 AD3d 1169 [3d Dept 2003]), the petitioner was granted an order of child support against a respondent who was incarcerated at the time of the support hearing. He was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated.
Summary of this case from In the Matter of J.A.E. v. A.BOpinion
93365.
Decided and Entered: December 24, 2003.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Rensselaer County (Griffin, J.), entered October 9, 2000, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, for an order directing respondent to pay child support.
Wayne D. Baker, Troy, appellant pro se.
Arthur Dunn, Troy, for respondent.
Before: Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking support for the parties' child. After a hearing, the Support Magistrate ordered, among other things, that respondent pay $82 weekly as his basic child support obligation and $33.11 weekly for child care, and established over $12,000 in arrears. Because respondent was incarcerated at the time of the hearing and earning $.45 a day, the Support Magistrate imputed income to respondent based on his salary before his arrest. Respondent filed objections to this order. Respondent appeals from Family Court's denial of those objections.
Family Court correctly denied respondent's objections. New York courts will not countenance a reduced child support award where a parent's financial hardship results from his or her own intentional and wrongful conduct resulting in incarceration (see Matter of Knights v. Knights, 71 N.Y.2d 865, 866-867; Matter of Furman v. Barnes, 293 A.D.2d 781). Granting respondent decreased child support payments based on his incarceration after his conviction of felony driving while intoxicated would permit him to benefit from his wrongful conduct to the detriment of his child (see Matter of Onondaga County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Timothy S., 294 A.D.2d 27, 30).
Family Court properly rejected respondent's attempt to reduce his pre-incarceration income by deducting unreimbursed employee business expenses pursuant to Family Ct Act § 413 (1)(b)(5) (vii) (a). Respondent submitted his tax return, which included tax deductions for business expenses totaling $13,002, nearly half his salary. The court was not required to accept the figures on his income tax return (see Matter of Duguay v. Paoletti, 279 A.D.2d 767, 768). Based on the lack of substantiation for these deductions, in the form of receipts or other business records, the court properly declined to reduce respondent's income by the claimed amount (see La Porte v. La Porte, 263 A.D.2d 585, 587; Faber v. Faber, 206 A.D.2d 644, 645).
Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.