This case came to my attention: Finn v. Piesco, --- A.D.3d ---, --- N.Y.S.3d --- (First Dept. 2015)(2015 WL 1636653)(2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03087)(Apr. 14, 2015).
The fact pattern is not set forth in detail but it appears that Wife/Mom was an experienced attorney with other degrees and professions (once earning up to 125G) but apparently no longer working: she was on public assistance and made pendent lite motion for temporary maintenance and modification of prior child support order.
The supreme court imputed income to Wife/Mom and denied application for maintenance and modification of child support. But the Appellate Division remanded the case for reconsideration of child support while upholding the denial of maintenance.
Thus it would appear that income was imputed for purposes of temporary maintenance but not for child support.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.