| Severing v Severing |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05589 [97 AD3d 956] |
| July 12, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Patrick Michael Severing, Appellant, v Denise Michelle Severing,Respondent. |
—[*1] Orseck Law Offices, PLLC, Liberty (Kirk O. Orseck of counsel), for respondent.
Kavanagh, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cahill, J.), entered September 26,2011 in Sullivan County, which denied plaintiff's motion to partially vacate a stipulation ofsettlement.
In February 2000, a judgment of divorce incorporated by reference, but did not merge, theparties' December 1999 stipulation of settlement, which required plaintiff (hereinafter thehusband) to pay $287 per week in child support. In May 2001, defendant (hereinafter the wife)moved by order to show cause to hold the husband in contempt for failing to make these childsupport payments.[FN*]As a result, Supreme Court (Kane, J.), issued an order, on consent, which directed the husband topay $287 per week in child support through the child support collection unit.
Some 10 years later, the wife, in May 2011, filed a petition alleging that the husband failed tomake the required child support payments and owed nearly $10,000 in arrears. In response, thehusband moved to vacate that part of the stipulation that required him to pay child supportarguing that it did not comply with the Child Support Standards Act (see DomesticRelations Law § 240 [1-b] [hereinafter CSSA]). Supreme Court (Cahill, J.) denied thehusband's [*2]motion, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. The parties' oral stipulation, which was placed on the record by the husband'scounsel, stated that the provision requiring child support was consistent with the CSSA and eachparty informed Supreme Court that they understood that the amount of child support to be paidby the husband was consistent with the CSSA guidelines. Further, the husband's counselsubmitted to the court a worksheet that documented how the amount to be paid by the husbandfor child support was calculated and how it conformed to the CSSA. As such, we reject thehusband's claim that the stipulation failed to meet the requirements of the CSSA (seeDomestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [h]; McCarthy v McCarthy, 77 AD3d 1119, 1120 [2010]; Sullivan v Sullivan, 46 AD3d1195, 1196-1197 [2007]). As for his contention that the calculation of his child supportobligation failed to take into account certain deductions, this argument was not raised beforeSupreme Court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (see generally Matter of Marcklinger vLiebert, 72 AD3d 1431, 1433 [2010]; Matter of Van Buren v Burnett, 58 AD3d900, 902 [2009]).
Rose, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr. and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.
Footnote *: The wife also filed a petition inFamily Court alleging that the husband had violated the child support order.