HOLECK, LISA M. v. BEYEL, SEAN D. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1212
    CAF 15-01119
    PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
    IN THE MATTER OF LISA M. HOLECK,
    PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT,
    V                             MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    SEAN D. BEYEL, RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
    SEAN D. BEYEL, RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.
    LISA M. HOLECK, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT PRO SE.
    Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Joan E.
    Shkane, J.), entered April 23, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to Family
    Court Act article 4. The order denied the objections of respondent-
    petitioner to an order of a Support Magistrate.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act
    article 4, respondent-petitioner father appeals pro se from an order
    that, inter alia, denied his objections to a Support Magistrate’s
    order that, among other things, denied his request for a reduction of
    his child support obligation. Contrary to the father’s contention,
    the Support Magistrate did not err in directing him to apply to the
    Social Security Administration for a change in the representative
    payee of the subject children’s social security disability (SSD)
    benefits from the father to petitioner-respondent mother. The court
    in a child support matter has discretion to consider “ ‘everything
    available to support the child’ ” (Matter of Webb v Rugg, 197 AD2d
    777, 778; see Matter of Graby v Graby, 87 NY2d 605, 611, rearg denied
    88 NY2d 875). The evidence in the record before us establishes that
    the mother had primary physical custody of the subject children, and
    that their needs were best served by having their SSD benefits paid to
    her.
    We further conclude that, because those payments are to be used
    for the benefit of the children and the father failed to establish
    that he had done so, the Support Magistrate did not err in directing
    that he pay to the mother the amount of those benefits that he
    received after the mother filed the petition seeking those payments
    for the benefit of the children (see Family Ct Act § 449 [2]; McDonald
    v McDonald, 262 AD2d 1028, 1028-1029; see generally Matter of Kummer,
    93 AD2d 135, 185-186). Contrary to the father’s contention, the
    -2-                          1212
    CAF 15-01119
    Support Magistrate did not award those funds to the mother as support
    arrears. Instead, the Support Magistrate directed the father to
    provide the mother, the children’s primary custodian, with funds that
    were “for the children’s social security payment that [the father]
    received and did not give to” the mother and that he failed to
    establish that he used for the children’s benefit.
    Family Court also properly denied the father’s objection to that
    part of the Support Magistrate’s order that rejected his request for a
    reduction of his child support obligation. The father requested that
    reduction after the mother became the payee for the children’s SSD
    benefits, and the father contended that he received less income due to
    the change in payee. It is well settled that, “although a dependent
    child’s Social Security benefits are derived from the disabled
    parent’s past employment, they are designed to supplement existing
    resources, and are not intended to displace the obligation of the
    parent to support his or her children” (Graby, 87 NY2d at 611; see
    Matter of Hollister v Whalen, 244 AD2d 650, 650). Therefore, the fact
    that the Support Magistrate directed the father to request that the
    Social Security Administration designate the mother as the children’s
    representative payee, together with the father’s resulting loss of the
    use of that money, does not provide a basis for a downward
    modification of the father’s child support obligation (see Matter of
    McDonald v McDonald, 112 AD3d 1105, 1107-1108; see generally Graby, 87
    NY2d at 611).
    Entered:   December 23, 2016                    Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CAF 15-01119

Judges: DeJoseph, Lindley, NeMoyer, Present--Smith, Trout-Man

Filed Date: 12/23/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024