Matter of Piraino v. Piraino: Overtime Included in CSSA Income; Minimum-Wage Imputation and Above-Cap Support Sustained

1. Introduction

Matter of Piraino v Piraino (Appellate Division, Third Department, July 10, 2025) addresses how New York courts calculate and modify child support under the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) when (i) the payor’s income includes overtime, (ii) the recipient’s income is imputed despite part-time/per-diem work driven by childcare scheduling realities, and (iii) the parties’ combined parental income exceeds the statutory cap.

The parties—Danielle Piraino (mother) and Albert Piraino (father)—are divorced parents of two children (born 2009 and 2011). The mother petitioned for an upward modification; the father cross-petitioned for a downward modification. After a hearing, the Support Magistrate increased the father’s support and the Family Court denied the father’s objections. The father appealed.

The core issues on appeal were whether the Support Magistrate (a) properly included the father’s overtime in “income,” (b) properly imputed income to the mother at full-time minimum wage rather than $20/hour, and (c) properly awarded support above the statutory cap given the case-specific factors. A further issue was whether substantial parenting time makes the award “unjust or inappropriate.”

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Third Department affirmed. It held there was no abuse of discretion in:

  • Including the father’s overtime pay in his income because it appeared on his most recent tax return and he offered no proof overtime would cease or become unavailable.
  • Imputing income to the mother at full-time minimum wage (not $20/hour), where the evidence supported that full-time work at the higher rate was not available and her work structure was tied to being available for the children.
  • Awarding child support above the statutory cap after consideration of statutory factors, including the parties’ prior agreement using above-cap income, the significant income disparity, and the availability of the father’s current wife’s income as a resource for household expenses.
  • Rejecting the father’s claim that substantial parenting time warranted a reduction; parenting time generally does not reduce the noncustodial parent’s support obligation.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The court’s reasoning was anchored in a line of Third Department authority emphasizing discretionary fact-finding, deference to credibility determinations, and structured CSSA methodology.

  • Matter of Christopher C. v Kimberly C. (177 AD3d 1129 [3d Dept 2019])
    Cited for the statutory basis to modify support where a party’s gross income changes by 15% or more (Family Ct Act § 451 [3] [b] [ii]). This framed the threshold for reaching the merits of recalculation.
  • Matter of Prusky v Fredrick (191 AD3d 1117 [3d Dept 2021])
    Quoted for the CSSA’s “precisely articulated, three-step method.” This supplied the analytical structure: compute income, apply the statutory formula up to the cap, then determine treatment of income above the cap.
  • Johnson v Johnson (172 AD3d 1654 [3d Dept 2019])
    Cited for the rule that income may be imputed based on earning capacity if the court articulates the basis and the record supports the calculation. The Third Department used this to uphold the Support Magistrate’s explanation for imputing minimum-wage full-time income to the mother.
  • DeCrescenzo v Suslak (238 AD3d 1406 [3d Dept 2025])
    Cited for appellate deference to credibility determinations regarding imputed income—critical here because the mother’s testimony about job availability and childcare constraints drove the imputation decision.
  • Matter of Beck v Beck (190 AD3d 1148 [3d Dept 2021])
    Cited for the rebuttable presumption that CSSA-guideline calculations are correct. This presumption implicitly placed a burden on the father to show why the guideline-based outcome (including above-cap treatment) was unjust or inappropriate.
  • Matter of Thomas T. v Judith S. (238 AD3d 1244 [3d Dept 2025]) and Matter of Simpson v Cyrius (220 AD3d 708 [2d Dept 2023])
    Both were used to validate counting overtime reflected in tax returns where the payor fails to prove overtime will not continue. These cases supported treating overtime not as a speculative bonus, but as part of demonstrated earnings history.
  • Matter of Zwicklbauer v Hannigan (232 AD3d 1138 [3d Dept 2024]) and Matter of Susko v Susko (181 AD3d 1016 [3d Dept 2020])
    Cited to sustain imputation decisions and above-cap awards where the record supports the Support Magistrate’s rationale. They reinforced the discretionary nature of both imputation and above-cap determinations when grounded in statutory factors and evidence.
  • Kimberly C. v Christopher C. (155 AD3d 1329 [3d Dept 2017]) and Headwell v Headwell (198 AD3d 1130 [3d Dept 2021])
    Used to situate the above-cap analysis: awards above the cap may be sustained when properly factor-driven; Headwell is cited in a “compare” signal, underscoring that above-cap outcomes turn on how the statutory factors are applied to the particular record.
  • Heber v Heber (237 AD3d 1276 [3d Dept 2025])
    Cited for the settled rule that the noncustodial parent’s obligation is not reduced based on time spent with the children. This directly defeated the father’s “extensive parenting time” argument.
  • Matter of Jordan v Horstmeyer (152 AD3d 1097 [3d Dept 2017])
    Cited for appellate procedure: Support Magistrate orders are superseded by the Family Court order ruling on objections, so the appeal lies from the Family Court order.

B. Legal Reasoning

(1) Modification gateway (Family Ct Act § 451)

The court began with the statutory authorization to modify child support upon a 15% change in either party’s gross income. This provided the legal basis to revisit the parties’ support obligation and apply the CSSA framework.

(2) CSSA step one: defining “income,” including overtime

The father argued his “income” should be limited to base salary, excluding overtime. The court rejected that approach because:

  • Overtime was reflected in the father’s most recent federal tax return.
  • The father offered no evidence that overtime would no longer be available or that his earnings would be limited to base salary going forward.

The reasoning reflects a practical evidentiary rule: when overtime is part of demonstrated, reported earnings and there is no persuasive proof it will stop, it is treated as income for CSSA purposes.

(3) CSSA step one: imputing income to a parent with constrained work options

The father sought to impute income to the mother at $20/hour for 40 hours per week based on her per diem administrative rate. The Support Magistrate instead imputed full-time minimum-wage income, relying on record findings that:

  • The mother credibly testified full-time work at the $20/hour administrative role was unavailable.
  • Her per diem and substitute teaching work aligned with being available before/after school.
  • Her employment history and the evidence supported a minimum-wage full-time imputation as a realistic earning-capacity baseline.

The Appellate Division emphasized two guardrails for imputation: the factfinder must articulate the basis, and the record must support it. It then applied appellate deference to credibility determinations, concluding there was no abuse of discretion.

(4) CSSA step three: combined income above the statutory cap

Where combined parental income exceeds the cap, the court may apply the statutory percentage, the § 413 (1) (f) factors, or both, to determine support on income above the cap. Here, the Support Magistrate justified above-cap support by pointing to:

  • The parties’ prior agreement that already used income above the cap.
  • A substantial disparity between the mother’s and father’s incomes.
  • The availability of the father’s current wife’s income as a resource to him for shared household expenses.

The Third Department held that this factor-based analysis supported the above-cap award and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

(5) Parenting time and “unjust or inappropriate” claims

The father argued that extensive parenting time rendered the award unjust or inappropriate. The court applied the rule that child support is not reduced based solely on time spent with the children, and further noted the father’s materially greater resources. On that record, the award was neither unjust nor inappropriate.

C. Impact

  • Overtime as income: The decision reinforces that overtime reflected on tax returns will be included in CSSA income unless the payor produces concrete evidence that overtime will not continue. This discourages unsupported attempts to “normalize” earnings downward to base salary.
  • Imputation tied to job availability, not merely hourly rate: A higher per diem rate does not automatically translate into imputation at that rate for full-time hours. Courts will focus on whether full-time work at that rate is realistically available and consistent with credible testimony about labor market and childcare constraints.
  • Above-cap support remains highly fact-driven: The case illustrates how prior agreements, income disparity, and household resource sharing can support above-cap awards when properly tied to Family Ct Act § 413 (1) (f) factors.
  • Parenting time arguments face a steep doctrinal barrier: The reaffirmation of Heber v Heber signals that “substantial time” alone is unlikely to reduce basic support absent a legally cognizable basis beyond visitation schedule.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • CSSA “three-step method”: (1) Determine each parent’s income (including permissible imputation); (2) apply the statutory percentage to combined income up to the cap and allocate shares pro rata; (3) decide how to treat income above the cap using the statutory factors and/or percentage.
  • Statutory cap: A ceiling on the amount of combined parental income to which the basic statutory percentage is automatically applied. Income above the cap is not ignored; rather, the court must decide how to calculate support on that excess using statutory guidance.
  • Imputed income: Income assigned by the court based on earning capacity or available resources when actual earnings do not reflect what the parent could earn. It must be explained and supported by evidence.
  • Pro rata share: Each parent’s proportional share of the combined income, used to allocate responsibility for the basic support obligation (and often add-ons).
  • Rebuttable presumption: The guideline amount is presumed correct, but a party may overcome that presumption by showing the result would be unjust or inappropriate under the statutory factors.
  • Objections to a Support Magistrate and appeal: A party objects first in Family Court; the appeal is taken from the Family Court order deciding the objections, not the Support Magistrate’s order (because it is superseded).

5. Conclusion

Matter of Piraino v Piraino is a disciplined application of the CSSA that clarifies several recurring disputes in modification litigation: overtime reported on tax returns is presumptively includable absent proof it will end; imputation must reflect realistic job availability rather than a theoretical extrapolation of an hourly rate; above-cap support is sustainable when grounded in the § 413 (1) (f) factors; and extensive parenting time, standing alone, does not reduce the noncustodial parent’s obligation. The decision’s significance lies less in announcing a novel doctrine than in reinforcing evidentiary expectations and the appellate “abuse of discretion” standard that will govern future challenges to child-support calculations in New York.