| Lew v Lew |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02634 [82 AD3d 1171] |
| March 29, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Thierry Lew, Appellant, v Dorothy Lew,Respondent. |
—[*1] Lester & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Roy J. Lester of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief,from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ross, J.), enteredNovember 24, 2009, which, upon a decision of the same court dated May 5, 2009, made after anonjury trial, inter alia, directed him to pay the defendant (a) the sum of $220 per week in childsupport, retroactive to October 25, 2005, (b) 50% of the sum of $240 per week, representingchild care expenses, retroactive to May 2006, (c) 50% of the sum of $290 per month,representing nursery school expenses for the parties' child, retroactive to September 2007, (d)50% of the cost of health and medical insurance for the parties' child, retroactive to February 7,2008, and (e) 50% of the unreimbursed medical, pharmaceutical, optical, dental, orthodontic, andtherapeutic expenses for the parties' child, retroactive to October 25, 2005.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The defendant contends that the plaintiff failed to assemble a complete record, including allof the pertinent transcripts relating to the issues presented on this appeal (see CPLR5526; Schwartz v Schwartz, 73 AD3d 1156, 1156-1157 [2010]). However, there aresufficient transcripts of the trial proceedings in the record for this Court to reach an informeddecision on the merits and provide meaningful appellate review of the judgment insofar asappealed from (cf. Schwartz v Schwartz, 73 AD3d at 1157; Wen Zong Yu v HuaFan, 65 AD3d 1335 [2009]).
Since the plaintiff never requested the assignment of counsel, his contention that theSupreme Court should have appointed counsel on his behalf is unpreserved for appellate review.
The plaintiff failed to comply with the requirement that he file a statement of net worth(see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [4] [a]; Levesque v Levesque, 73AD3d 990 [2010]). As the plaintiff failed to provide the Supreme Court with sufficient evidenceto determine his gross income, the Supreme Court properly awarded child support and relatedobligations based on the needs of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B][8] [a]; § 240 [1-b] [k]; Kay v Kay, 37 NY2d 632, 636 [1975]; Evans [*2]v Evans, 57 AD3d 718 [2008]; Amsellem v Amsellem,15 AD3d 510, 510-511 [2005]; Mayer v Mayer, 291 AD2d 384, 385 [2002]).Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that he diligently sought toobtain new employment commensurate with his skills, qualifications, and experience (seePaul v Paul, 67 AD3d 757, 758 [2009]).
Accordingly, the plaintiff's contentions with respect to child support and related payments arewithout merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Miller, JJ., concur.