| Matter of Cedeno v Knowlton |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06418 [98 AD3d 1257] |
| September 28, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Jose Cedeno, Appellant, v Bonnie Knowlton,Respondent. |
—[*1]
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Cattaraugus County (Michael L. Nenno, J.),entered April 25, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order deniedthe objections of petitioner to the order of the Support Magistrate.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Contrary to petitioner father's contention, Family Court properly denied hisobjections to the Support Magistrate's order that, after a hearing, determined that the parties' childwas not emancipated and continued the father's child support obligation until the child turned 21years of age. "A parent is obligated to support his or her child until the age of 21 (seeFamily Ct Act § 413) unless the child becomes emancipated, which occurs once the childbecomes economically independent through employment and is self-supporting" (Matter of Smith v Smith, 85 AD3d1188, 1188 [2011]; see Matter ofDrumm v Drumm, 88 AD3d 1110, 1112-1113 [2011]; Matter of Burr v Fellner, 73 AD3d1041, 1041-1042 [2010]; Matter ofThomas B. v Lydia D., 69 AD3d 24, 28 [2009]). Here, although the parties' childworked on a full-time basis and filed individual income tax returns, the fact that respondentmother continued to pay for the child's food, gas, and cell phone demonstrates that the child wasnot economically independent and self-supporting (see Drumm, 88 AD3d at 1113;Smith, 85 AD3d at 1188-1189; Thomas B., 69 AD3d at 31; cf. Matter of Lowe v Lowe, 67 AD3d682, 683 [2009]; Matter of Fortunato v Fortunato, 242 AD2d 720, 721 [1997]).Present—Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.