Opinion
12-21-2016
In the Matter of Edwin SCHEPPY, respondent, v. Erin KELLY–SCHEPPY, appellant.
Erin Kelly–Scheppy, East Northport, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Erin Kelly–Scheppy, East Northport, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Bernard Cheng, J.), dated December 2, 2015. The order denied the mother's objections to an order of that court (Aletha Fields, S.M.) dated September 17, 2015, which, after a hearing, directed her to pay child support in the sum of $139 per week in addition to $4,031 in retroactive support.
ORDERED that the order dated December 2, 2015, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A support magistrate need not rely upon a party's account of his or her own finances, but may impute income based upon the party's past income or demonstrated earning potential (see Napoli v. Koller, 140 A.D.3d 1070, 1071, 34 N.Y.S.3d 488 ; Matter of Rohme v. Burns, 92 A.D.3d 946, 947, 939 N.Y.S.2d 532 ; Matter of Strella v. Ferro, 42 A.D.3d 544, 546, 841 N.Y.S.2d 118 ). A support magistrate may impute income to a party based on his or her employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or “non-income-producing assets” (Family Ct. Act § 413[1][b][5][iv] ; see Matter of Funaro v. Kudrick, 128 A.D.3d 695, 8 N.Y.S.3d 433 ; Baumgardner v. Baumgardner, 98 A.D.3d 929, 930–931, 951 N.Y.S.2d 64 ). 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 (see Matter of Kameneva v. Hughes, 138 A.D.3d 854, 28 N.Y.S.3d 343 ; Matter of Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 114 A.D.3d 798, 980 N.Y.S.2d 531 ; Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang, 89 A.D.3d 946, 933 N.Y.S.2d 80 ).
Here, the Support Magistrate properly imputed income to the mother based upon her prior and current income, and her savings account assets (see Family Ct. Act § 413[1][b][5][iv] ; Napoli v. Koller, 140 A.D.3d at 1071, 34 N.Y.S.3d 488 ; Matter of Strella v. Ferro, 42 A.D.3d at 546, 841 N.Y.S.2d 118 ). In assessing the mother's credibility, the Support Magistrate properly considered the fact that the mother's stated monthly expenses were more than three times greater than her stated monthly income, and she did not submit any evidence to show that these monthly expenses were not being paid in a timely manner (see Samimi v. Samimi, 134 A.D.3d 1010, 1012, 22 N.Y.S.3d 515 ; Matter of Barnett v. Ruotolo, 49 A.D.3d 640, 641, 854 N.Y.S.2d 155 ; Matter of Strella v. Ferro, 42 A.D.3d at 546, 841 N.Y.S.2d 118 ).
Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother's objections to the Support Magistrate's findings.
BALKIN, J.P., DICKERSON, LaSALLE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.