| Matter of Huddleston v Rufrano |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06217 [98 AD3d 1046] |
| September 19, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Maria Huddleston, Appellant, v AnthonyM. Rufrano, Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals froman order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated January 5, 2012, whichdenied her objections to an order of the same court (Fields, S.M.), dated October 26, 2011,which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed the father to pay child support in the sum of only $155per week.
Ordered that the order dated January 5, 2012, is modified, on the law, by deleting theprovision thereof denying the mother's objections to so much of the order dated October 26,2011, as directed the father to pay child support in the sum of only $155 per week, andsubstituting therefor a provision granting the mother's objections to the extent of directing thefather to pay the sum of $259 per week, and otherwise denying the objections; as so modified,the order dated January 5, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
As a result of the parties' August 2000 divorce, the father, who is a plumber by trade, wasdirected to pay the sum of $250 per week as support for the subject child. In September 2004,because of a work-related injury resulting in the father's receipt of workers' compensationbenefits, his obligation was downwardly modified to $108 per week. In April 2008, inaccordance with a cost-of-living adjustment, the father's obligation was increased to $121 perweek. In August 2011, the mother petitioned for an upward modification of the father's supportobligation. After a hearing, the Support Magistrate determined that the father's annual income(see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5]), stemming from self-employment with A & JDrain, Inc. (hereinafter A & J), was $47,382.52, consisting of both monetary compensation andbenefits, and, inter alia, directed the father to pay child support in the sum of $155 per week. Themother filed objections to that determination, which the Family Court denied. The motherappeals. We modify.
A court need not rely upon a party's own account of his or her finances, but may imputeincome based upon the party's past income or demonstrated future potential earnings (see Matter of Rohme v Burns, 92AD3d 946, 947 [2012]; Wesche vWesche, 77 AD3d 921, 923 [2010]). "The court may impute income to a party based onhis or her employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or moneyreceived from friends and relatives" (Wesche v Wesche, 77 AD3d at 923). The court mayalso properly impute income where a party's account of his or her finances is not credible or issuspect (see id.; Matter of Senav Sena, 65 AD3d 1244, 1244-1245 [2009]).[*2]
Here, the Support Magistrate should have imputed anadditional $31,448.30 to the income earned by the father. The Support Magistrate failed toinclude a $10,611 payment made to the father by A & J for services rendered as its vice-presidentin the year 2010. The evidence at the hearing supported the conclusion that this was not aone-time payment, but would be a recurring one, particularly since the father's business isgrowing (cf. Matter of Muselevichus vMuselevichus, 40 AD3d 997, 999 [2007]; Matter of Knapp v Levy, 245 AD2d1027 [1997]). Since the incorporation of A & J, the father has increased his hours, has charged ahigher hourly rate, and has added sheet-rocking as a component of his business. In addition, theSupport Magistrate should have imputed $8,736 to the father as income, based on the earningsgenerated for A & J by the father's father-in-law through sheet-rocking. Finally, the father'stestimony that he receives as salary only 30% of the amount he bills on behalf of A & J was notcredible. The father did not know the balance on A & J's corporate checking account, and heprovided only vague testimony about A & J's business expenses (see Matter of Rohme vBurns, 92 AD3d at 947). A & J operates out of the father's home, and its only employees arethe father, his wife, and his father-in-law. Moreover, the father's credibility was impaired by histestimony that he was "volunteering" his time for A & J for more than one year after it came intoexistence while at the same time receiving unemployment benefits from the State of Nevada(see Wesche v Wesche, 77 AD3d at 923). Considering the father's lack of credibility andthe amount of his past earnings, the Support Magistrate should have concluded that the fatherearns an additional $12,101.30 in income from the business he generates on behalf of A & J.Accordingly, the record demonstrates that the father's income is $78,830.82 and, thus, he isobligated to make child support payments in the sum of $259 per week.
In light of our determination, the mother's remaining contention has been rendered academic.Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.