Rubin v. Della Salla
964 N.Y.S.2d 41, 107 A.D.3d 60 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York's Child Support Standards Act (CSSA), a parent with primary physical custody of a child for the majority of overnights in a shared custody arrangement cannot be ordered to pay child support to the other parent, even if there is a significant disparity in income. The determination of the "custodial parent" for child support purposes is primarily based on who has physical custody of the child for a majority of the time, measured by the number of overnights, not by "waking hours" or financial need, unless custodial time is truly equal.
Facts:
- Mara Rubin (mother) and Anthony Della Salla (father) are the unmarried parents of a son born in November 2003.
- The mother has a college degree and two years of law school, previously worked in real estate, but has not been employed since 2001. The father is a successful businessman, owning a title insurance company, with assets valued at approximately $20 million.
- After the child's birth, the mother lived with the child and her daughter separately from the father.
- After the parties' romantic relationship ended in 2007, the father's time with his son progressively increased, and by May 2008, they agreed the child would spend two out of three weekends with the father.
- In late 2008, school officials informed the father that the mother was habitually late in getting the child to school, leading the father to begin transporting his son to school daily. The child also spent most weekends, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and nine days of spring break with the father during the 2008-2009 school year.
- The child has learning disabilities, and the mother had problems arranging timely tutoring and securing dental care for him.
Procedural Posture:
- In April 2009, Mara Rubin (mother) commenced an action in Supreme Court, New York County, seeking sole legal and residential custody of the child and an order compelling Anthony Della Salla (father) to pay child support.
- Anthony Della Salla (father) also sought primary custody of the child in the same action.
- After a 10-day trial, the trial court (Supreme Court, New York County) issued a decision on custody on May 27, 2011, and an order was entered on July 19, 2011, awarding the father primary physical custody during the school year and decision-making authority over educational and medical issues.
- The mother appealed the July 19, 2011 custody order to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
- Following the custody decision, the father moved for summary judgment to dismiss the mother's cause of action for child support, arguing he was the custodial parent based on the number of overnights.
- The trial court (Supreme Court, New York County) denied the father's summary judgment motion in an order entered March 8, 2012, reasoning that an award of child support to the mother was not precluded given the parties' "parallel legal custody," shared time, and disparity in financial circumstances.
- The father appealed the March 8, 2012 denial of his motion for summary judgment to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) permit a court to order a parent who has primary physical custody of a child for the majority of overnights to pay child support to the other parent, especially when there is a significant financial disparity between the parents?
Opinions:
Majority - Richter, J.
No, a custodial parent who has the child a majority of the time, determined by overnights, cannot be directed to pay child support to the noncustodial parent, regardless of financial disparity. The court concluded that based on the plain language of the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA), its legislative history, and interpretation by the Court of Appeals in Bast v. Rossoff, only the noncustodial parent can be ordered to pay child support. The CSSA was enacted to establish a uniform, predictable method for calculating child support, replacing prior discretionary systems. In shared custody cases, courts must identify the "primary custodial parent" by determining which parent has physical custody for a majority of the time, and the number of overnights is the most practical and workable approach for this determination. Calculating "waking hours" is impractical, arbitrary, and could encourage manipulation. The disparity in overnights (father having 56% vs. mother having 44%) clearly designates the father as the custodial parent. The court rejected the argument that "in most instances" in Bast allowed for discretion based on financial need in unequal time situations, stating this phrase refers to truly equal custody or situations where the child is not residing primarily with either parent. Allowing economic disparity to govern the determination of the custodial parent where time is not equal would undermine the CSSA's goal of uniformity and predictability. The statutory exceptions for "unjust or inappropriate" child support only permit reduction or elimination of the noncustodial parent's obligation, not a reversal of payment direction.
Dissenting - Acosta, J.
No, but the rigid application of the statute in this case is unjust and sacrifices the child's well-being. The dissent argued that the CSSA, while aiming for uniformity, did not envision every possible custodial situation, especially those involving extreme financial disparity. Citing Baraby v. Baraby, the dissent noted that in cases of 50-50 custody splits, courts have "wisely deemed the monied spouse as the noncustodial parent." The dissent interpreted Bast v. Rossoff's phrase "in most instances" as vesting trial courts with some discretion in "rare" or "unique" cases where a strict application would cause the child to "unfairly bear the economic burden of parental separation," which is a stated objective of the CSSA. Given the father's multi-million dollar assets and the mother's unemployment, the child would live comfortably 56% of the year but "in or near poverty" for the remaining 44% if the mother receives no support. This goes against the law's goal that children should share in the economic well-being of both parents. Justice Acosta believes the trial judge should have the power to protect the child in this unique situation without risking a return to a broad discretionary approach.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict interpretation of New York's Child Support Standards Act (CSSA), particularly in shared custody arrangements where one parent clearly has the child for a majority of the time. It solidifies "overnights" as the primary and preferred metric for determining the "custodial parent" for child support purposes, explicitly rejecting alternative measures like "waking hours" or considerations of financial disparity as determinative factors when custody time is unequal. The decision emphasizes the legislative intent of uniformity and predictability, thus limiting judicial discretion to deviate from the statutory formula to specific, statutorily defined circumstances that do not include reversing the payer/recipient roles based on economic need or a general sense of "justice."
