Matter of Smith v Smith
2011 NY Slip Op 05716 [85 AD3d 1188]
June 28, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 10, 2011


In the Matter of Patricia J. Smith, Respondent,
v
Charles J.Smith, Appellant.

[*1]John A. Reno, Deer Park, N.Y., for appellant.

Sallah Law Firm, P.C., Holtsville, N.Y. (Dean J. Sallah of counsel), for respondent.

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the husband appeals from anorder of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated May 5, 2010, which denied hisobjections to an order of the same court (Joseph-Cherry, S.M.), dated March 8, 2010, which,after a hearing, granted the wife's petition for awards of child support and spousal support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the husband's contention, the Family Court properly denied his objections to theSupport Magistrate's order. The record supports the Support Magistrate's determination that theparties' son was not emancipated. A parent is obligated to support his or her child until the age of21 (see Family Ct Act § 413) unless the child becomes emancipated, which occursonce the child becomes economically independent through employment and is self-supporting(see Matter of Thomas B. v LydiaD., 69 AD3d 24 [2009]). In the present case, although the parties' son worked full-time,paid for his own car insurance, and paid for his own cell phone, the fact that his mother still paidfor his food, shelter, clothing, and health and dental insurance, demonstrates that he was noteconomically independent of his parents (see Matter of Thomas B. v Lydia D., 69 AD3d 24 [2009];Matter of Bogin v Goodrich, 265 AD2d 779 [1999]; cf. Matter of Lowe v Lowe, 67 AD3d 682 [2009]; Matter ofFortunato v Fortunato, 242 AD2d 720 [1997]).

The award of $200 per month is a fair and reasonable sum for the support of the wife basedon her needs and the husband's means (see Matter of Nisita v Nisita, 81 AD3d 832 [2011]; Matter ofShreffler v Shreffler, 283 AD2d 679 [2001]; Polite v Polite, 127 AD2d 465 [1987]).Mastro, J.P., Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.