What did the court decide?

The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's denial of the mother's objections, vacated the Support Magistrate's orders as to including deferred income and imputing income to the mother, and sent the case back for recalculation and further proceedings.

Who is affected by this decision?

Both parents are affected because their child support and spousal support obligations must be recalculated; the father's deferred compensation will be considered and the mother's imputed income must be reassessed.

The Family Court must re-evaluate the parties' incomes, include the father's deferred income in combined income calculations, reassess whether any income should be imputed to the mother, and issue new support determinations.

On what legal grounds did the court reverse?

The court relied on the Family Court Act's requirement to include deferred compensation in income calculations and held the Support Magistrate improvidently exercised discretion in imputing income to the mother without sufficient justification.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Yes, the parties could seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, subject to the rules and timelines governing appeals from the Appellate Division.

Matter of Inzinna v. Inzinna

Docket 2024-02391

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

FamilyRemanded

Filed: Apr 22, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Family
Disposition: Remanded
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02406
Docket: 2024-02391

Appeal from a Family Court order denying objections to Support Magistrate orders directing spousal and child support

Summary

The Appellate Division reversed a Family Court order that denied the mother's objections to two Support Magistrate orders. The Support Magistrate had ordered the father to pay spousal support and ordered the mother to pay child support, based on findings that included the father's approximately $161,000 income and an imputed income to the mother. The appellate court held the Family Court erred: the father's deferred income must be included in calculating combined income, and the Support Magistrate abused discretion by imputing income to the mother above her reported earnings. The case is remitted for recalculation and further proceedings.

Issues Decided

Whether the Support Magistrate properly accounted for the father's deferred income when calculating combined income for support purposes under Family Court Act § 413(1)(b)(5)
Whether it was proper to impute additional income to the mother in excess of her reported income

Court's Reasoning

The court explained that Family Court Act § 413(1)(b)(5) requires inclusion of gross income that should have been reported on tax returns and income voluntarily deferred, such as deferred compensation, so the father's deferred income must be counted in the combined-income calculation. The court also found that imputing income to the mother beyond her reported earnings was an improvident exercise of discretion because the Support Magistrate did not adequately justify that higher income based on available resources or credibility findings. Those errors require recalculation and further proceedings.

Authorities Cited

Family Court Act § 413(1)(b)(5)
Gilbert v Gilbert32 AD3d 414
Matter of Vittorio v Vittorio236 AD3d 805

Parties

Appellant: Tara Inzinna
Respondent: Patrick Inzinna
Judge: Betsy Barros, J.P.
Judge: Lillian Wan
Judge: Donna-Marie E. Golia
Judge: Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-22
Support Magistrate findings date: 2024-01-16
Support Magistrate orders entered: 2024-01-24
Family Court order denying objections: 2024-03-13
Separation: 2023-01-01
Mother filed spousal support petition: 2023-05-01

What You Should Do Next

1
Family Court recalculation
The Family Court must recalculate combined income including the father's deferred income and make fresh determinations of child support and maintenance consistent with this decision.
2
Prepare financial documentation
Both parties should gather complete tax returns, documentation of deferred compensation, retirement benefits, and any evidence about available resources to support accurate income determinations.
3
Consult counsel about appeal options
Either party who disagrees with the Appellate Division's decision should consult an attorney promptly to evaluate the viability and deadlines for seeking further appellate review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's denial of the mother's objections, vacated the Support Magistrate's orders as to including deferred income and imputing income to the mother, and sent the case back for recalculation and further proceedings.
Who is affected by this decision?: Both parents are affected because their child support and spousal support obligations must be recalculated; the father's deferred compensation will be considered and the mother's imputed income must be reassessed.
What happens next?: The Family Court must re-evaluate the parties' incomes, include the father's deferred income in combined income calculations, reassess whether any income should be imputed to the mother, and issue new support determinations.
On what legal grounds did the court reverse?: The court relied on the Family Court Act's requirement to include deferred compensation in income calculations and held the Support Magistrate improvidently exercised discretion in imputing income to the mother without sufficient justification.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Yes, the parties could seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, subject to the rules and timelines governing appeals from the Appellate Division.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Matter of Inzinna v Inzinna - 2026 NY Slip Op 02406

Matter of Inzinna v Inzinna

2026 NY Slip Op 02406

April 22, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

In the Matter of Tara Inzinna, appellant,

Patrick Inzinna, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.)

In the Matter of Patrick Inzinna, respondent,

Tara Inzinna, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on April 22, 2026

2024-02391, (Docket Nos. F-7221-23, F-7960-23)

Betsy Barros, J.P.

Lillian Wan

Donna-Marie E. Golia

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Wand & Goody, LLP, Commack, NY (Jennifer H. Goody of counsel), for appellant.

Geffner Kersch, P.C., Garden City, NY (Alisa J. Geffner of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Alfred C. Graf, J.), dated March 13, 2024. The order denied the mother's objections to (1) an order of the same court (Jennifer Ann Mendelsohn, S.M.) dated January 24, 2024, which, after a hearing, and upon findings of fact dated January 16, 2024, directed the father to pay certain spousal support, and (2) so much of an order of the same court (Jennifer Ann Mendelson, S.M.) also dated January 24, 2024, as, after a hearing, and upon the findings of fact dated January 16, 2024, directed the mother to pay certain child support.

ORDERED that the order dated March 13, 2024, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the mother's objections to the first order dated January 24, 2024, and so much of the second order dated January 24, 2024, as directed the mother to pay certain child support, are granted, the first order dated January 24, 2024, and that portion of the second order dated January 24, 2024, are vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

The parties were married in 2009 and have two children. In January 2023, the parties separated. In May 2023, the mother filed a petition seeking spousal support, and the father thereafter filed a petition seeking child support.

After a hearing, wherein both parties testified, the Support Magistrate issued findings of fact, determining, inter alia, that the father's income was approximately $161,000 and imputing income in the amount of $79,196.04 to the mother. In an order dated January 24, 2024, upon the findings of fact, the Support Magistrate directed that the father pay certain spousal support to the mother. In a separate order of the same date, upon the findings of fact, the Support Magistrate directed, among other things, that the mother pay certain child support to the father.

In February 2024, the mother filed objections to the first order dated January 24, 2024, and so much of the second order dated January 24, 2024, as directed her to pay certain child
support to the father. In an order dated March 13, 2024, the Family Court denied the mother's objections. The mother appeals.

The Family Court erred in denying the mother's objections. Family Court Act § 413(1)(b)(5) provides that a party's income shall include all gross income that should have been reported in the most recent federal income tax return plus "to the extent not already included in gross income . . . , the amount of income or compensation voluntarily deferred and income received . . . from . . . pensions and retirement benefits" (
id.
§ 413[1][b][5][iii][F]). The Support Magistrate determined that the father's income was approximately $161,000. Since the father's deferred income was not counted, a recalculation of the father's combined income is necessary (
see

Gilbert v Gilbert
, 32 AD3d 414).

"'A court is not bound by a party's account of his or her own finances, and where a party's account is not believable, the court is justified in finding a true or potential income higher than that claimed'" (
Matter of Vittorio v Vittorio
, 236 AD3d 805, 806, quoting
Saks v Saks
, 199 AD3d 950, 952;
see

Malkani v Malkani
, 208 AD3d 863, 865). Family Court Act § 413(1)(b)(5)(iv)(D) provides that "the court may attribute or impute income from such other resources as may be available to the parent, including, but not limited to . . . money, goods, or services provided by relatives and friends."

The Support Magistrate improvidently exercised her discretion in imputing additional income to the mother in excess of her reported income (
see

Matter of Rahim v Braden
, 239 AD3d 862, 863;
Matter of Bram v Bram
, 228 AD3d 933, 935).

Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a new determination of the parties' child support and maintenance obligations.

BARROS, J.P., WAN, GOLIA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph