| Bluemer v Bluemer |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00212 [47 AD3d 652] |
| January 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Deirdre T. Bluemer, Respondent, v Christopher E.Bluemer, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kurtzberg & Kurtzberg, P.C., Melville, N.Y. (Linda A. Kurtzberg of counsel), forrespondent. Vincent J. Messina, Jr., Central Islip, N.Y., Law Guardian for the child.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from so much of ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), entered October 16, 2006, as,upon a decision of the same court dated June 15, 2006, made after a nonjury trial, awarded theplaintiff alternate week visitation with the parties' child, directed the plaintiff to pay child supportin the sum of only $25 per month, and directed him to pay 80% of the fees of the Law Guardianand court-appointed forensic expert.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"The extent to which the noncustodial parent may exercise parenting time is a mattercommitted to the sound discretion of the hearing court, to be determined on the basis of the bestinterests of the child" (Chamberlain vChamberlain, 24 AD3d 589, 592 [2005]). Here, despite the Supreme Court's grant ofsole legal custody of the children to the defendant, there was a sound and substantial basis in therecord for the Supreme Court's award of alternate week visitation to the plaintiff (see Matterof Spurck v Spurck, 254 AD2d 546, 547-548 [1998]). Equal parenting time, in the form ofalternate week visitation, was recommended by the court-appointed forensic expert and wascarried out pursuant to a so-ordered stipulation entered into by the parties approximately sevenmonths prior to the trial.[*2]
Since payment of the annual amount of the plaintiff'sbasic child support obligation would reduce her income below the poverty level, the SupremeCourt properly directed the plaintiff to pay child support in the amount of only $25 per month(see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [d]; Matter of Paige v Austin, 27 AD3d 474, 475 [2006]).
The Supreme Court's allocation of responsibility for the fees of the Law Guardian and thecourt-appointed forensic expert was based on a consideration of the financial circumstances ofthe parties, and constituted a provident exercise of discretion (see Domestic RelationsLaw § 237 [a]; Conway vConway, 29 AD3d 725, 726 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Covello andAngiolillo, JJ., concur.