| Matter of Sena v Sena |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03524 [61 AD3d 980] |
| April 28, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Evelin Sena, Respondent, v JeovanniSena, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals (1),as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County(Klein, J.), dated January 15, 2008, as denied his objections to an order of the same court(Hochberg, S.M.), dated September 11, 2007, inter alia, directing him to pay the sum of $125 perweek in child support and $72 per week for child care, and (2) from an order of the same court(Malone, J.), dated August 7, 2008, which denied his objections to an order of the same court(Hochberg, S.M.), dated February 13, 2008, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to itsdetermination in the order dated September 11, 2007.
Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County (Hochberg,S.M.), to report on the specific sources of income imputed, the actual dollar amount assigned toeach category, and the resultant calculations pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (c),and the appeals are held in abeyance in the interim. The Family Court, Westchester County, shallfile its report with all convenient speed.
Upon review of the order dated September 11, 2007, and findings of fact of the SupportMagistrate, it is evident that he imputed income to the father in calculating the father's basicsupport obligation pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act. A Support Magistrate ispermitted to impute income in calculating a support obligation where he or she finds that theparty's account of his or her finances is not credible or is suspect (see Matter of Genender v Genender,40 AD3d 994, 995 [2007]; Matter[*2]of Westenberger v Westenberger, 23 AD3d 571[2005]; Peri v Peri, 2 AD3d425, 427 [2003]; Lilikakis v Lilikakis, 308 AD2d 435, 436 [2003]; Rohrs vRohrs, 297 AD2d 317, 318 [2002]). "However, in exercising the discretion to impute incometo a party, a Support Magistrate is required to provide a clear record of the source from whichthe income is imputed and the reasons for such imputation," and the resultant calculations (Matter of Kristy Helen T. v RichardF.G., 17 AD3d 684, 685 [2005]; see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c];Matter of Genender v Genender, 40 AD3d at 995; Matter of Wienands vHedlund, 305 AD2d 692, 693 [2003]; Matter of Sweedan v Baglio, 269 AD2d 724,725-726 [2000]). In the case at bar, the Support Magistrate failed to specify the sources ofincome imputed, the actual dollar amount assigned to each category, and the resultantcalculations. The record thus is not sufficiently developed to permit appellate review.Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County (Hochberg,S.M.) to provide this information, and the appeals must be held in abeyance pending receipt bythis Court of the report. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.