Source: http://rochesterfamilylawyer.korotkinlaw.com/tag/order/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:25:57+00:00

Document:
I have previously written about various child support issues, here, here, here and here. While the number of issues is substantial, one situation that comes up periodically, is the one where the non-residential parent earns a substantial income, placing the combined parental income well in excess of the basis economic support under the Child Support Standards Act. While the income limit for basic economic support under the CSSA is about to increase substantially, what happens in situations where the nonresidential parent earns several hundred thousands dollars or more per year?
In a recent decision, Jackson v. Tompkins, 2009 N.Y. Slip. Op. 06550 (2nd Dept. 2009), the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that in high income cases, appropriate determination under F.C.A. §413(1)(f) for an award of child support on parental income in excess of $80,000 should be based upon child’s actual needs and amount required for child to live an appropriate lifestyle, rather than upon wealth. See, Brim v. Combs, 25 A.D.3d 691, 693 (2nd Dept. 2006). The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s order which directed that the father pay $6,700 in monthly child support.
The above decision is consistent with the prior cases, such as Cassano, and its progeny. The Appellate Division cited Brim v. Combs in reaching its holding. That case makes for an interesting reading since the respondent in Brim v. Combs was Sean “Puffy” Combs. In Brim, the mother’s net worth statement and her extensive testimony at the hearing established that her expenses related to the child were $19,148.74 per month, exclusive of the child’s educational, health, medical, dental, school transportation, school supplies/books, security, and summer camp expenses, which in any case are paid by the father. The court further noted that this amount was deemed admitted as fact by the father due to his failure to comply with the compulsory financial disclosure requirements of Family Court Act § 424-a. Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that the Family Court erred in awarding $35,000 in monthly child support to the mother. Instead, the mother should have been awarded monthly child support in the sum of $19,148.74 to satisfy the child’s actual needs and to afford him an appropriate lifestyle (see Family Ct Act § 413).
Thus, if you earn a substantial income and you are obligated to pay child support, your family law attorney would do well to know what are the child’s needs and what are the actual expenses associated with child, and be prepared to challenge any unsubstantiated claims at a hearing.
Since the enactment of Domestic Relations Law §236(B), often referred to as the “Equitable Distribution Law,” divorce lawyers have had to deal with transfers of, or encumbrances on, marital property which might frustrate the eventual disposition of a divorce case.
Immediately after the enactment of the Equitable Distribution Law, attorneys attempted to prevent transfers and encumbrances of marital property by various means, such as seeking injunctive relief to prevent or undo any transfers, filing notices of pendency with regard to real property which would form part of equitable distribution, and seeking other forms of relief from the courts. Eventually, the case law made clear that a notice of pendency cannot be filed in a divorce case since an equitable distribution action did not directly affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment, of real property. This left injunctive relief as the only means to restraining transfers during the pendency of an action. Since the burden of obtaining an injunction was considerable, the moving party had to make a requisite showing that the party to be restrained was threatening to dispose, or was already disposing, of marital assets so as to adversely affect the movant’s ultimate rights to equitable distribution. Typically, the burden of making the application, and the expenses of doing so, fell on the non-titled spouse.
The different courts in New York State took different approaches to address this issue. Here in Rochester, the supreme court justices handling matrimonial cases would issue, if requested, standing orders which restrained the parties from substantially altering their financial positions. However, the standing orders would be issued in most cases after a motion was brought or after a preliminary conference was held.
(2) Neither party shall transfer, encumber, assign, remove, withdraw or in any way dispose of any tax deferred funds, stocks or other assets held in any individual retirement accounts, 401K accounts, profit sharing plans, Keogh accounts, or any other pension or retirement account, and the parties shall further refrain from applying for or requesting the payment of retirement benefits or annuity payments of any kind, without the consent of the other party in writing, or upon further order of the court.
The Office of Court Administration has promulgated a Rule already and is in the process of issuing an Official Form incorporating the Notice required under the Statute. Until the official form is issued, a divorce attorney should attach a notice to the summons stating that, upon service, an order is in effect and then reciting, word-for-word, the five elements listed above. In my experience, the Monroe County Clerk’s Office will provide a form at the time the summons is filed, unless the requisite notice is already attached to the summons.
This legislation basically preserves the status quo during the pendency of a matrimonial action by shifting the burden of seeking relief from a spouse asking for the imposition of an injunction to a spouse moving to vacate or modify that restraint. What is unclear at this time, is how this automatic order will be enforced, and what are the remedies for its violation.

References: v. 
 §413
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 424
 § 413
 §236