Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

Victim Who Needs Child Support 165
reimbursement for expenditures made to secure that care. Agreed that it
might be appropriate to deviate from the statutory amount based on the
parent’s need to maintain a home for the child and the child’s periodic visits
to the parent’s home.
Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998).
Reiterates that the court must apply the CSSA in all cases, regardless of the
custodial arrangements. After determining the amount in accordance with
the formula, the court may then deviate from this amount if it is found to be
unjust or inappropriate.
Dox v Tyson, 90 NY2d 166 (1997).
Establishes that the mere delay in enforcement of a child support order does
not amount to an implied waiver of child support.
Graby v Graby, 87 NY2d 605 (1996).
Sets forth the method for considering Social Security Disability benefits
received by a child. Since this money is for the benefit of the child and does
not affect the income of the paying parent, it is impermissible to use the
amount of these benefits to offset the noncustodial parent’s child support
obligation. The child support amount must be established the ordinary way,
through use of the formula, and can be changed only if the court finds it
would be unjust or unreasonable.
Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63 (1995).
Sets the standard for finding that a failure to pay child support is willful.
Proof of arrears constitutes a prima facie case. The burden is then on the
respondent to show that nonpayment was not willful.
Cassano v Cassano, 85 NY2d 649 (1995).
Established that the Child Support Standards Act shifts the emphasis from
“a balancing of the expressed needs of the child and the income available to
the parents after expenses” to “the total income available to the parents and
the standard of living that should be shared with the child.” Whether the
court uses the formula or the variation factors, it must articulate its reasons.