Bonsignore v. Flanagan

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated May 24, 2011, which denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Buse, S.M.), dated March 16, 2011, as, after a hearing, directed him to pay basic child support in the sum of $1,542 per month.

ORDERED that the order dated May 24, 2011, is affirmed, with costs.

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in applying the statutory percentage of 17% ( see Family Ct Act § 413[1][b][3][i] ) to the portion of the combined parental income which exceeded $130,000 ( see Family Ct Act § 413[1][c][1], [2],[3]; Matter of Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649, 655, 628 N.Y.S.2d 10, 651 N.E.2d 878; Levy v. Levy, 39 A.D.3d 487, 835 N.Y.S.2d 228; Matter of Lachman v. LeJemtel, 19 A.D.3d 421, 796 N.Y.S.2d 143). The Family Court sufficiently articulated the reasons for applying the statutory percentage to the combined parental income over $130,000, and its determination indicates that it carefully considered the parties' circumstances, including the custody arrangement, and the child's needs ( see Bast v. Rossoff, 91 N.Y.2d 723, 675 N.Y.S.2d 19, 697 N.E.2d 1009; Matter of Spratt v. Fontana, 51 A.D.3d 1034, 857 N.Y.S.2d 505; Mendenhall v. Mendenhall, 4 A.D.3d 344, 770 N.Y.S.2d 885; Gainey v. Gainey, 303 A.D.2d 628, 756 N.Y.S.2d 647).

The father's remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court as they were not raised in his objections to the Support Magistrate's order ( see Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang, 89 A.D.3d 946, 947, 933 N.Y.S.2d 80; Matter of Forman v. Frost, 67 A.D.3d 908, 909, 888 N.Y.S.2d 218), or without merit ( see Family Ct Act § 413[1][b][5][iii][C]; Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][b][5][iii][C]; § 240[1][c]; Blay v. Blay, 51 A.D.3d 1189, 857 N.Y.S.2d 784; Matter of Kristy Helen T. v. Richard F.G., 24 A.D.3d 788, 808 N.Y.S.2d 409; Matter of Andre v. Brumaire, 299 A.D.2d 355, 750 N.Y.S.2d 314; Haas v. Haas, 265 A.D.2d 887, 695 N.Y.S.2d 644).