From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Vizcaino v. Butler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1998
248 A.D.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 9, 1998

Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Clark, H.E.).


Ordered that the appeals from the orders dated January 3, 1997, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements ( see, Family Ct. Act § 439 [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 30, 1997, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the appellant's objections to the orders of the Hearing Examiner are sustained, the orders are vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for a de novo hearing and determination in accordance herewith.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Hearing Examiner's determination with regard to the mother's income, the amount of child care expenses, and the amount of arrears has no sound evidentiary basis and therefore must be rejected ( see, Nowacki v. Nowacki, 90 A.D.2d 795, 796; Matter of Schmeling v. Schmeling, 178 A.D.2d 999; cf., Matter of Avitzur v. Rose, 174 A.D.2d 843, 846). Moreover, the child support order issued by the Hearing Examiner failed to comport with the direction of Family Court Act § 413 (1) (c) (4) insofar as it did not separately state each party's prorated sum of child care expenses.

Further, Family Court Act § 439 (e) requires a Hearing Examiner to submit findings of fact. The materials that purport to constitute findings in this case consist of three pages of handwritten notes, some of which are in shorthand and some of which are barely decipherable. These materials are insufficient for judicial review and do not constitute the findings contemplated by the statute ( see, Matter of Burnside v. Somerville, 202 A.D.2d 1064).

Accordingly, the order of the Family Court denying the father's objections to the Hearing Examiner's orders is reversed and the matter is remitted to that court for a de novo hearing and determination.

In light of the foregoing disposition, the appellant's remaining contention regarding the Hearing Examiner's application of the Child Support Standards Act in computing the amount of child support need not be addressed.

Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Vizcaino v. Butler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1998
248 A.D.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Vizcaino v. Butler

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SARA L. VIZCAINO, Respondent, v. GARTH A. BUTLER…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 382

Citing Cases

Jernigan-Leysath v. Leysath

The record is devoid of information regarding the amount of any subsidy received and dates of receipt of…

Jernigan-Leysath v. Leysath

The record is devoid of information regarding the amount of any subsidy received and dates of receipt of…