Opinion
1480
June 19, 2003.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2002, which denied respondent former husband's objections to the Hearing Examiner's order, entered on or about December 21, 2001, finding that respondent owes petitioner former wife a balance of $40,274.09 in maintenance and child support arrears on outstanding judgments, plus $8318.38 in new arrears, for a total of $48,592.47, to be paid by respondent, if employed, at a rate that would reduce his annual income to $34,380.50, unanimously modified, on the facts, to reduce the total arrears on outstanding judgments to $40,040, and raise the amount to which respondent's annual income may be reduced to $36,575, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Suzanne K. Colt, for petitioner-respondent.
Joseph F. DeSimone, for respondent-appellant.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger, Gonzalez, JJ.
Family Court accorded appropriate deference to the Hearing Examiner's findings, which were based largely on credibility (see Matter of Sledge v. Sledge, 228 A.D.2d 310). We reject respondent's contention that the prior Maryland income deduction order, which excluded arrears attributable to the children's health care and educational expenses, precludes enforcement of such obligations in New York, which has continuing jurisdiction of the matter (see Matter of Parenzan v. Parenzan, 285 A.D.2d 59, lv dismissed 97 N.Y.2d 700; Matter of Shafer v. Martin, 287 A.D.2d 825, 826). As the Hearing Examiner found, the Maryland order simply reflects Maryland law, which does not provide for such obligations in a child support order, and did not purport to adjudicate petitioner's right thereto under the New York judgments. We modify the total amount of arrears awarded under outstanding judgments to reflect the amount sought. We also modify to correct an arithmetic error in calculating the amount below which an income deduction order may not reduce respondent's annual income based on the federal poverty income guidelines. We have considered respondent's other contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.