Summary
In Groh, the Appellate Division found the trial court erred in only using the defendant's income when determining the child support amount, in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(4).
Summary of this case from Siebor v. SieborOpinion
March 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.).
Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal from the order entered March 4, 1997, are dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered June 27, 1997, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered June 27, 1997, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the defendant wife $224.75 per week in child support; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new determination of child support in accordance herewith; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiff husband shall pay to the defendant wife child support in the amount of $100 per week until the Supreme Court has made a new determination.
The Supreme Court failed to calculate the "combined parental income" of the parties, in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 240, and made no specific findings regarding the actual or imputed income of the defendant wife. Moreover, although it is undisputed that the combined parental income exceeds $80,000, the court did not address how to calculate the combined parental income. While the statute explicitly vests discretion in the court to apply the stated percentage to income over $80,000, rather than apply the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (f), there must be some "record articulation of the reasons for the court's choice * * * to facilitate * * * review" (Matter of Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649, 655).
Consequently, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court so that it may do the proper calculations and arrive at an award of child support, supported by both parties' updated financial information. We further find it appropriate to remit the matter to enable the Supreme Court to articulate its reasons with regard to calculations involving any income over $80,000 (see, Matter of Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 659, supra; Kimmel v. Mifflin, 240 A.D.2d 471; Junkins v. Junkins, 238 A.D.2d 480; Zaremba v. Zaremba, 222 A.D.2d 500).
The wife's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.