| Sadaghiani v Ghayoori |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05690 [97 AD3d 1013] |
| July 19, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Avideh Sadaghiani, Respondent, v Ramin Ghayoori,Appellant. |
—[*1] Nestler & Gibson, PLLC, Albany (Roy K. Nestler of counsel), for respondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from an amended order of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered May 19,2011 in Albany County, upon remittal, ordering, among other things, defendant to pay certainchild support.
On a prior appeal in this divorce action, we, among other things, remitted the matter toSupreme Court to state the basis for its application of the full statutory percentage to the parties'total combined parental income over the statutory cap of $130,000 (Sadaghiani v Ghayoori, 83 AD3d1309 [2011]). Upon remittal, Supreme Court issued an amended order setting forth thefactors it considered. Defendant now appeals from that order.
Defendant contends that Supreme Court again failed to justify its determination to apply thechild support percentage to the total combined income. We disagree. Where, as here, combinedparental income exceeds $130,000, the court must determine the parties' child supportobligations for that excess amount by considering the so-called "paragraph (f)" factors(see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [3]; [f]; Smith v Smith, 1 AD3d 870, 872[2003]). The amended order explains the basis of Supreme Court's determination and, in ourview, reflects a careful consideration of the parties' circumstances (see Matter of Cassano vCassano, 85 NY2d 649, 655 [1995]). Although defendant also claims that Supreme Courtrelied on incomes that are not supported in the record, we previously affirmed the amounts ofboth parties' incomes and need not revisit those issues (83 AD3d at 1311-1312). Accordingly, wewill not disturb Supreme [*2]Court's exercise of its discretion inapplying the full statutory percentage to the total combined parental income (see Holterman v Holterman, 3 NY3d1, 14 [2004]; Matter of Marcklingerv Liebert, 88 AD3d 1114, 1116 [2011]; Smith v Smith, 1 AD3d at 872).
Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the amended order isaffirmed, without costs.