Liling Gao v. Ming Min Fan

4 Citing cases

  1. DeCillis v. DeCillis

    152 A.D.3d 512 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 10 times

    The mother appeals, and we modify."When determining a parent's child support obligation, ‘[a] court need not rely upon a party's own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party's past income or demonstrated future potential earnings' " (Matter of Abruzzo v. Jackson, 137 A.D.3d 1017, 1018, 27 N.Y.S.3d 225, quoting Matter of Rohme v. Burns, 92 A.D.3d 946, 947, 939 N.Y.S.2d 532 ; see Matter of Liling Gao v. Ming Min Fan, 148 A.D.3d 897, 898, 48 N.Y.S.3d 771 ; Matter of Napoli v. Koller, 140 A.D.3d 1070, 1071, 34 N.Y.S.3d 488 ; Matter of Gebaide v. McGoldrick, 74 A.D.3d 966, 967, 901 N.Y.S.2d 857 ). A support magistrate "is afforded considerable discretion in determining whether to impute income to a parent" (Matter of Julianska v. Majewski, 78 A.D.3d 1182, 1183, 911 N.Y.S.2d 655 ), and "we accord deference to a support magistrate's credibility determinations" (Matter of Napoli v. Koller, 140 A.D.3d at 1071, 34 N.Y.S.3d 488 ; see Matter of Kameneva v. Hughes, 138 A.D.3d 854, 855, 28 N.Y.S.3d 343 ; Matter of Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 114 A.D.3d 798, 798, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531 ; Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang, 89 A.D.3d 946, 947, 933 N.Y.S.2d 80 ).

  2. Worfel v. Kime

    154 A.D.3d 1143 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    Family Court noted this inconsistency, in that the parents had allegedly made a major loan while decreasing his pay, with knowledge of the ongoing contentious legal proceedings, and upheld the Support Magistrate's determinations upon consideration of the contradictions between the testimony and the documentation.Upon this record, we find no abuse of discretion in Family Court's determination to impute to the father the rental income reported in his 2012 tax return (see Matter of Liling Gao v. Ming Min Fan, 148 A.D.3d 897, 898, 48 N.Y.S.3d 771 [2017] ; Matter of Kelly v. Bovee, 9 A.D.3d 641, 642–643, 779 N.Y.S.2d 656 [2004] ; Matter of Dukes v. White, 295 A.D.2d 899, 899, 743 N.Y.S.2d 780 [2002] ; Matter of Liebman v. Liebman, 229 A.D.2d 778, 779, 645 N.Y.S.2d 581 [1996] ). Similarly, according due deference to the underlying credibility assessments (see Matter of Tompkins v. Tompkins, 110 A.D.3d 1172, 1173, 973 N.Y.S.2d 416 [2013] ), we find no abuse of discretion in the determination to impute the income he received from his shares in the family company (see Matter of Gallager v. Flaherty, 220 A.D.2d 867, 867, 632 N.Y.S.2d 239 [1995] ; see also Matter of Thomas v. DeFalco, 270 A.D.2d 277, 278, 703 N.Y.S.2d 530 [2000] ; Matter of Emery v. Bond, 269 A.D.2d 832, 832, 703 N.Y.S.2d 788 [2000] ), or to impute an amount equal to the unpaid monthly payments on the promissory note (see Family Ct. Act § 413[1][b][5][iv][D] ; Matter of Abellard v. Aime, 18 A.D.3d 653, 653, 795 N.Y.S.2d 652 [2005] ; Matter of Collins v. Collins, 241

  3. D.D. v. A.D.

    63 N.Y.S.3d 304 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    The Court has the authority to impute income to either, or both parties, based upon their established earning history, or current earning potential. See Matter of Gao v. Ming Min Fan, 148 AD3d 897 (2d Dept.2017) ; See also Gafycz v. Gafycz, 148 AD3d 679 (2d Dept.2017). Here, for the detailed reasons set forth above (See "Maintenance") the Court has found it appropriate to impute an annual salary of $45,000 to Wife and an annual income of $135,000 to Husband.

  4. Carney v. Carney

    57 N.Y.S.3d 674 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)

    In addition, imputation of income is not dependent on an applicant's immediate income: the court can consider "demonstrated future potential earnings." Gao v. Ming Fan, 2017 N.Y.App. Div. LEXIS 1782 (2nd Dept.2017). The court may also consider imputing income to an individual when he fails to make any attempt to find a higher-paying job.