Child support is calculated from a parties last filed federal income tax return. The Court cannot discount the fact that an individual made to much money in the year before determining child supp
The Child Support Standards Act (Domestic Relations Law ? 240[1-b]; hereinafter the CSSA) requires the court to establish the parties' basic child support obligation as a function of the income that is, or should have been, reflected on the party's most recently filed income tax return (see Domestic Relations Law ? 240[1-b][b][5][I]; Miller v. Miller, 18 AD3d 629, 631; Bains v.. Bains, 308 A.D.2d 557; McNally v. McNally, 251 A.D.2d 302, 303). Thus, although it is not improper to impute income to a party where the record demonstrates that a party's income tax return does not reflect the party's actual income (see Renzulli v. Renzulli, 251 A.D.2d 482; Murphy-Artale v. Artale, 219 A.D.2d 587) or demonstrated earning potential (see Nebons v. Nebons, 26 AD3d 478; Zabezhanskaya v. Dinhofer, 274 A.D.2d 476; Phillips v. Phillips, 249 A.D.2d 527), the statute does not permit the court to determine a party's income for child support purposes by excluding actual overtime wages (see Parise v. Parise, 13 AD3d 504; Kelley-Milone v. Milone, 256 A.D.2d 554) or by averaging a party's earnings over several years (see Reilich v. Reilich, 275 A.D.2d 929), as the Supreme Court did here. Although the Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff was capable of earning $35,000 a year based upon her education, past employment, and earnings potential, it was improper to base the child support calculation on an average of the defendant's past earnings. In determining the defendant's income for child support purposes, the Supreme Court correctly deducted from the defendant's income the maintenance he is required to pay (see Thoma v. Thoma, 21 AD3d 1080, 1082; Chalif v. Chalif, 298 A.D.2d 348, 349), but incorrectly included the maintenance payments in the plaintiff's income (see Shapiro v. Shapiro, 35 AD3d 585; Harrison v. Harrison, 255 A.D.2d 490) and should have provided for a corresponding adjustment in child support upon the expiration of the durational maintenance award (see Domestic Relations Law ? 240[1-b][b][5][vii][c]; Navin v. Navin, 22 AD3d 474; Parise v. Parise, supra; Rohrs v. Rohrs, 297 A.D.2d 317, 318; Lee v. Lee, 18 AD3d 508, 509; Smith v. Smith, 1 AD3d 870). Finally, the Supreme Court did not articulate its reasons for awarding child support in addition to basic child support, as it is required to do (see Matter of Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649, 654-655; Clerkin v. Clerkin, 304 A.D.2d 784; Wagner v. Dunetz, 295 A.D.2d 501).
ort.
