Miriam E. Zakarin | New York Child Support, Custody, Family Law Attorney

R.I. v T.I.
Introduction and Background On March 9, 2016, the defendant moved by emergency order to show cause [motion sequence #1] for the following relief: a) awarding the defendant sole legal and physical custody of the infant child of the marriage, who was born in October of 2015; b) directing the plaintiff be made to pay defendant basic child support for the subject child in accordance with the Child Support Standards Act, pendente lite; c) directing the plaintiff to maintain health insurance for the defendant and the subject child; d) directing the plaintiff to pay for child care and related costs, and unreimbursed medical expenses for the subject child; e) directing that the Kings County Family Court action be consolidated with this action to the Kings County Supreme Court; f) directing that the plaintiff pay to the defendant spousal maintenance that are currently in arrears in the amount of $12,500, and calculate future payments of pendente lite spousal support as per the NYS Court calculator; g) directing the plaintiff to pay to Treuhaft and Zakarin, LLP the sum of $10,000 as and for defendant's pendente lite counsel fees, without prejudice to seek additional fees as needed; and h) for such other and further relief for the defendant as this Court may deem just and proper. The defendant appeared on March 9, 2016 as a result of filing an ex parte application and pursuant to 22NYCRR 202.7(a), before the Hon. Eric I. Prus, sitting as the Emergency Judge in this County that day, who issued an order directing the plaintiff to provide the defendant and subject child with health insurance, and a lump sum payment of $7,500 towards spousal support arrears pursuant to the Kings County Family Court order of spousal support and to appear before the undersigned, the assigned judge, on March 22, 2016.[FN1] On March 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a cross-motion [motion sequence #2] requesting the following relief: a) ordering the defendant and subject child to submit to a DNA test; b) modifying the order of spousal support issued by the Family Court in light of the fact that the defendant is a physician assistant and the Court should impute to the defendant $100,000 per year in income; and c) granting such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper. Read More......