| Hurley v Hurley |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02277 [71 AD3d 1470] |
| March 19, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Daniel P. Hurley, Respondent, v Amanda H. Hurley,Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Stephen K. Lindley, J.),entered January 5, 2009 in a divorce action. The order, among other things, directed plaintiff topay defendant weekly child support in a specified sum.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendant mother appeals from an order in this divorce action that, inter alia,directed plaintiff father to pay the sum of $103.85 per week in child support. We reject themother's contention that the Referee should have imputed additional income to the father incalculating his child support obligation. The Referee "is afforded considerable discretion indetermining whether to impute income to a parent . . . , and that determination mayproperly be based upon a parent's prior employment experience" (Matter of Hurd v Hurd,303 AD2d 928, 928 [2003]). Here, the record establishes that the prior employment of the fatherended when his employer terminated the part of the business in which he was employed. Inaddition, the father did not significantly decrease his income by starting his own business ratherthan accepting similar employment from another employer. Consequently, the Referee did notabuse his discretion in refusing to impute additional income to the father (cf. Matter of Rubley v Longworth, 35AD3d 1129, 1130-1131 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 811 [2007]). The mother did notrequest an order requiring the father to maintain life insurance for the benefit of the children, andthus her contention with respect thereto is not preserved for our review (see generally Stanley v Hain, 38 AD3d1205, 1206 [2007]; Irato v Irato, 288 AD2d 952 [2001]). Present—Smith,J.P., Fahey, Carni, Sconiers and Pine, JJ.