Opinion
No. 453 CAF 23-01600
07-26-2024
IN THE MATTER OF MINDY M. FALLIN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. FAISEL A. HARUNA, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
ROSCETTI & DECASTRO, P.C., NIAGARA FALLS (CAMILLE S. BROWN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
ROSCETTI & DECASTRO, P.C., NIAGARA FALLS (CAMILLE S. BROWN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, DELCONTE, KEANE, AND HANNAH, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Mary G. Carney, J.), entered March 1, 2023, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied respondent's objections to an order of the Support Magistrate.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, respondent father appeals from an order denying his objections to the order of the Support Magistrate, which directed the father to pay petitioner mother child support in the amount of $1,737 per month. On appeal, the father contends that the Support Magistrate erred in imputing income to him in the amount of $100,000 for the purpose of determining his child support obligation. We affirm.
Courts have" 'considerable discretion'" to impute income to a parent in fashioning a child support award, and "a court's imputation of income will not be disturbed so long as there is record support for its determination" (Lauzonis v Lauzonis, 105 A.D.3d 1351, 1351 [4th Dept 2013]; see Matter of Muok v Muok, 138 A.D.3d 1458, 1459 [4th Dept 2016]). "[T]he general rule is that child support is determined by the parents' ability to provide for their child rather than their current economic situation" (Irene v Irene [appeal No. 2], 41 A.D.3d 1179, 1180 [4th Dept 2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Bashir v Brunner, 169 A.D.3d 1382, 1383 [4th Dept 2019]). "[I]n determining a party's child support obligation, a court need not rely upon the party's own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party's past income or demonstrated earning potential" (Belkhir v Amrane-Belkhir, 118 A.D.3d 1396, 1397 [4th Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Courts may impute income based on a party's employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or money received from friends and relatives (see Matter of Drake v Drake, 185 A.D.3d 1382, 1383 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 909 [2021]; Matter of Deshotel v Mandile, 151 A.D.3d 1811, 1812 [4th Dept 2017]; Matter of Rohme v Burns, 92 A.D.3d 946, 947 [2d Dept 2012]). Further, "where a party's account [of his or her own finances] is not believable, the court is justified in finding a true or potential income higher than that claimed" (Elsayed v Edrees, 141 A.D.3d 503, 505 [2d Dept 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 908 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Sharlow v Sharlow, 77 A.D.3d 1430, 1431 [4th Dept 2010]).
We conclude that the court's determination to impute $100,000 income to the father is supported by the evidence in the record, including evidence of the amounts that the father paid for household expenses, private school tuition, the mother's use of a vehicle, and miscellaneous child care expenses, as well as evidence of his access to financial support from his family (see Matter of Houck v Houck, 217 A.D.3d 1556, 1557 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 906 [2023]; Matter of Remsen v Remsen, 198 A.D.3d 658, 660 [2d Dept 2021]; Rohme, 92 A.D.3d at 947).