From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lutz v. Lutz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 2008
50 A.D.3d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-05942.

April 15, 2008.

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), dated May 14, 2007, as sustained the respondent's objection to so much of an order of the same court (Grier, S.M.), dated September 26, 2006, as, after a hearing, imputed $24,636 in annual gross income to the respondent.

The Sallah Law Firm, P.C., Holtsville, N.Y. (Dean J. Sallah of counsel), for appellant.

Joseph A. Solow, Hauppauge, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The objection to the imputation of income to the respondent was properly sustained on the ground that the imputation was not supported by the record and was an improvident exercise of discretion under the circumstances ( see Matter of Simmons v Simmons, 48 AD3d 691; Matter of Ambrose v Felice, 45 AD3d 581, 582-583; Matter of Taraskas v Rizzuto, 38 AD3d 910).


Summaries of

Lutz v. Lutz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 2008
50 A.D.3d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Lutz v. Lutz

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ERIC LUTZ, Appellant, v. DORY LUTZ, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 15, 2008

Citations

50 A.D.3d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3460
854 N.Y.S.2d 667

Citing Cases

In re Shvetsova

ment commensurate with his qualifications and experience" ( Matter of Piernick v Nazinitsky, 48 AD3d 690; see…

Fleming v. McCloskey

n determining whether to impute income to a parent, rather than relying on a party's account of his or her…