Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

M.R. v. A.D.

Supreme Court, New York County

February 29, 2012

M.R., Plaintiff,
v.
A.D., Defendant.

Counsel for plaintiff: Jason Advocate, Advocate & Lichtenstein, LLP

Counsel for defendant: Maxine Shapiro, Eleanor Alter, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP

Hon. Ellen Gesmer, JSC.

Motion sequences eight and nine are consolidated for decision.

In this action, plaintiff M. R. (Mother) sought an order of custody of the parties' son, J., and an order of child support from defendant A. D. (Father). After a lengthy trial, the court issued a decision granting parallel custody to the parties, and establishing a schedule under which J. resides primarily with his Father during the school year, and primarily with his Mother during summers and school vacations (M. R. v A. D., 32 Misc.3d 512 [Sup Ct NY Co 2011]). The Mother now moves, in motion sequence 8, for an order directing that the Father pay her attorneys' fees both for her pending appeal of this court's custody determination after trial, and for the remaining proceedings in the trial court on her application for child support. The Father opposes the motion, and, on motion sequence nine, seeks an order granting summary judgment in his favor on the Mother's cause of action for child support, on the theory that, as the primary custodial parent, he cannot be required to pay child support. [1] The central issue now before the court is whether the court may award child support to the Mother under the atypical custodial arrangement fashioned by the court. The Court holds that, under the extremely unusual circumstances of this case, awarding child support to the Mother is not precluded as a matter of law, and therefore denies summary judgment to the Father.

FACTS

The background facts of this matter are set forth in this court's post-trial custody decision dated May 27, 2011 (the Decision), and will not be repeated here, except as relevant to the instant motions.

The parties were never married and have a son together, J., born on November 25, 2003 (now eight years old). The Mother commenced this custody and child support action on April 16, 2009.

The Decision awarded the parties parallel legal custody of J., with the Father having final decision-making authority, after consultation with the Mother, as to education and medical decisions, and the Mother having final decision-making authority, after consultation with the Father, as to summer activity, extracurricular activities, and religion. Both parties are permitted to communicate with and obtain records from J. 's educational and medical providers and to attend all of his school events. Based on the Father's greater ability to provide stability for J., and the Mother's close and loving relationship with J., the Decision set a schedule of parenting time under which J. resides primarily with his Father during the school year, and primarily with his Mother during the summer and other school break periods. This schedule results in J. spending 206 days of the year, or roughly 56%, with his Father, and 159 days, or roughly 44%, with his Mother. However, J. spends a far greater percentage of the days when he is not in school with his Mother. An order consistent with the Decision was signed on July 27, 2011 (the Order).

When the Father filed this summary judgment motion on August 9, 2011, the parties had commenced, but had not yet completed, financial discovery. Except for the limited discovery directed by this court in its October 11, 2011 Order, further discovery was stayed by the filing of the summary judgment motion.

The Mother has filed four Net Worth Statements (NWS) between April 2009 and July 2011. Those reveal the following:

Date of NWS

Monthly Expenses

Monthly Income

Assets

Debt

4/1/09

$38, 247.87

$0

$18, 000 [2]

$95, 933.04 [3]

12/17/10

$9, 635

$6, 000

$1, 175

$109, 009

6/15/11

$9, 600

$6, 000

$7, 500

$248, 000

7/6/11

$8, 242

$5, 600

$7, 957

$109, 009

The Mother, now 48, has not worked since in or about 2001, although she is licensed as a real estate agent. All of the income that she lists on her updated Net Worth Statement dated July 6, 2011 (her July 2011 NWS) is child support. Of that amount, $5, 000 per month is paid by the Father pursuant to this court's June 29, 2009 pendente lite decision and order as interim support of J., and $600 per month is paid by the Mother's ex-husband as child support for their daughter A.. The Mother's July 2011 NWS lists an alleged personal loan from a friend, in the amount of $100, 000, and a debt of about $9, 000 to Citibank, both of which appear on her two prior NWSs. The July 2011 NWS lists no debt to her attorneys although her prior NWS shows a debt of $128, 500 to her attorneys. Her monthly expenses include $4, 350 for rent.

The Husband's attorney correctly points out that there are a number of discrepancies between the financial documents obtained in discovery and the Mother's deposition testimony, on the one hand, and the Mother's claims in her various NWSs, on the other. [4] For example, the loan of $100, 000 that she lists on her NWSs is supported by promissory notes totaling only $28, 500, and she also testified at her deposition that she received gifts from the same friend. The Mother also testified at her deposition that another friend also gave her substantial financial assistance, none of which appears on any of the Mother's NWSs. She also gave conflicting statements in her NWSs about valuable ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.