Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Dee Jae Diliberto v. Gregg Michael Diliberto
Date: 08-21-2024
Case Number: 2019-02159
Judge: Not Available
Court: Supreme Court, Manhattan County, New York
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best New York City Family Law Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best New York City Family Law Lawyer Directory
New York City, New York family law divorce lawyers represented the parties.
The parties were married in March 2000 and have two children together. In March 2012, the parties entered into a postnuptial agreement, which was thereafter amended. On June 29, 2012, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. After a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court determined, inter alia, the issues of maintenance, child support, equitable distribution, and attorneys' fees in a decision dated October 25, 2018. The court subsequently entered a judgment of divorce entered December 14, 2018, upon the decision. The plaintiff appeals from stated portions of the judgment of divorce.
In determining maintenance and child support obligations, "[t]he court has considerable discretion in determining whether income should be imputed to a party and the court's credibility determinations are accorded deference on appeal" (Tuchman v Tuchman, 201 A.D.3d 986, 990 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "A parent's... obligation[s] [are] not necessarily determined by his or her current financial condition, but rather by his or her ability to provide support" (Volkerick v Volkerick, 153 A.D.3d 885, 886 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[A] court need not rely upon a party's own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party's past income or demonstrated future potential earnings. The court may impute income to a party based on his or her employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or money received from friends and relatives" (Tuchman v Tuchman, 201 A.D.3d at 990 [citations, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted]). "While a court is afforded considerable discretion in determining whether to impute income to a party, a determination to impute income will be rejected where the amount imputed was not supported by the record, or the imputation was an improvident exercise of discretion" (Weiss v Nelson, 196 A.D.3d 722, 724 [alternations and internal quotation marks omitted]).
The parties were married in March 2000 and have two children together. In March 2012, the parties entered into a postnuptial agreement, which was thereafter amended. On June 29, 2012, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. After a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court determined, inter alia, the issues of maintenance, child support, equitable distribution, and attorneys' fees in a decision dated October 25, 2018. The court subsequently entered a judgment of divorce entered December 14, 2018, upon the decision. The plaintiff appeals from stated portions of the judgment of divorce.
In determining maintenance and child support obligations, "[t]he court has considerable discretion in determining whether income should be imputed to a party and the court's credibility determinations are accorded deference on appeal" (Tuchman v Tuchman, 201 A.D.3d 986, 990 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "A parent's... obligation[s] [are] not necessarily determined by his or her current financial condition, but rather by his or her ability to provide support" (Volkerick v Volkerick, 153 A.D.3d 885, 886 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[A] court need not rely upon a party's own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party's past income or demonstrated future potential earnings. The court may impute income to a party based on his or her employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or money received from friends and relatives" (Tuchman v Tuchman, 201 A.D.3d at 990 [citations, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted]). "While a court is afforded considerable discretion in determining whether to impute income to a party, a determination to impute income will be rejected where the amount imputed was not supported by the record, or the imputation was an improvident exercise of discretion" (Weiss v Nelson, 196 A.D.3d 722, 724 [alternations and internal quotation marks omitted]).
Diliberto v. Diliberto, 2024 NY Slip Op 04244, Index No. 201830/12, No. 2019-02159 (N.Y. App. Div. Aug 21, 2024)
About This Case
What was the outcome of Dee Jae Diliberto v. Gregg Michael Diliberto?
The outcome was: The judgment of divorce was modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by adding thereto a provision awarding the plaintiff maintenance retroactive to June 29, 2012, the date of commencement of this action, in the sum of $2,000 per month, (2) by deleting the provision thereof directing the defendant to pay basic child support in the sum of $3,162.50 per month and 69% of the extracurricular activities, add-on expenses, and unreimbursed medical expenses for the children, and (3) by adding thereto a provision directing the defendant to pay the cost of health insurance for the plaintiff for the same period that the defendant is required to pay maintenance; as so modified, the judgment of divorce is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, (1) for a calculation of the defendant's maintenance arrears, including appropriate credits to the defendant, if any, (2) for a new determination of the defendant's child support obligations, including arrears owed, if any, and (3) for a calculation of any arrears owed by the plaintiff to the defendant for health insurance costs, and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment of divorce thereafter. Diliberto v. Diliberto, 2024 NY Slip Op 04244, Index No. 201830/12, No. 2019-02159 (N.Y. App. Div. Aug 21, 2024)
Which court heard Dee Jae Diliberto v. Gregg Michael Diliberto?
This case was heard in Supreme Court, Manhattan County, New York, NY. The presiding judge was Not Available.
Who were the attorneys in Dee Jae Diliberto v. Gregg Michael Diliberto?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best New York City Family Law Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best New York City Family Law Lawyer Directory.
When was Dee Jae Diliberto v. Gregg Michael Diliberto decided?
This case was decided on August 21, 2024.