Although certain nonrecurring income may be excluded in calculating a noncustodial parent’s child support obligation, The Penichet Firm successfully argued that given the specific facts and circumstances of this case, nonrecurring income such as an annual bonus and a lawsuit settlement must be included. Here, the amounts at issue involved a $625,000 bonus and a $75,000 settlement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision that the parties’ stipulation of settlement required the inclusion of these amounts in the defendant’s income for the purpose of defining the opposing party’s child support obligation for the years in question.
Mirkin v. Mirkin, 43 AD3d 1115 (2nd Dep’t 2007)
Eddie Still, of Counsel to The Penichet Firm, successfully appealed two Supreme Court judgments, which convicted our client of attempted assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree (two counts), and criminal contempt in the second degree and harassment in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposed sentences. The Appellate Division reversed the judgments on the law, and remitted the matters to Supreme Court, concluding that the Supreme Court deprived our client (defendant-appellant) his Constitutional right to a fair trial.
People v. Bradley, 99 A.D.3d 934 (2nd Dep’t 2012)
After The Penichet Firm successfully argued the doctrine of collateral estoppel in a prior appeal in this matter, they again received positive results in a subsequent appeal from an order and decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County, which granted the motion of our client (respondent), for summary judgment and dismissed the appellant’s objections. The Appellate Division held that our client made a prima facie showing of her entitlement to a judgment as a matter of law dismissing the objections within an accounting proceeding before the Surrogate Court. The Appellate Division affirmed the order and decree and awarded costs to our client, payable by the opposing party, personally.
In the Matter of the Estate of Paul F. Taylor, 79 A.D.3d 766 (2nd Dep’t 2010)
The Penichet Firm successfully defended the appeal of a Family Court order granted in favor of our client. The Appellate Division affirmed the order and held that the Family Court properly denied the opposing party’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s determination that our client successfully demonstrated both that his loss of employment constituted a substantial change in circumstances and that he made a good-faith effort to obtain new employment which was commensurate with his qualifications and experience.
In the Matter of Theresa Vozza v. Martin J. Goehringer, 139 A.D.3d 949 (2nd Dep’t 2016)
The Penichet Firm was successful on appeal when the Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court properly imposed a pendente lite restraint on the sale or transfer of the plaintiff’s assets in light of proof that she was attempting to dispose of assets that could adversely affect our client’s ultimate rights in equitable distribution.
Pagello v. Pagello, 17 A.D.3d 428 (2nd Dep’t 2005)