139 A.D.2d 277 (1984)

r
r

When court-ordered support payments are deducted from an employee’s wages but embezzled before reaching the recipient, the payor remains responsible for the support obligation.

r
r

Summary

r

Sam Szigyarto was subject to a court order to pay support to Ileana Szigyarto for their children. A payroll deduction order was implemented, but the employer’s office manager embezzled the funds. The New York Court of Appeals addressed who bears the loss: the payor (Sam), or the intended recipient (Ileana) and their children. The court held that the payor remained responsible for the support obligation. The deduction alone did not fulfill the obligation; actual payment to the recipient was required. The court reasoned that the purpose of wage deduction orders is to enhance, not diminish, support enforcement. The family should not suffer due to the embezzlement, and the payor’s obligation continues until the support is actually received.

r
r

Facts

r

r
Sam Szigyarto was obligated to pay support to Ileana Szigyarto for their two minor children pursuant to a court order.r
Sam defaulted on three consecutive support payments.r
In September 1980, the court entered a payroll deduction order, requiring Sam’s employer to withhold $70 weekly and transmit it to the court.r
In January 1982, Sam sought to reduce the weekly withholding, believing he had satisfied his arrears.r
It was discovered that for approximately six months, the deductions were made, but the funds were not transmitted to the court, totaling $1,750.r
The funds had been embezzled by the office manager.r
Sam’s attempts to recover the funds from his former employer (who was out of business) were unsuccessful.r

r
r

Procedural History

r

r
Sam applied to Family Court to modify the support order due to the embezzlement.r
The Family Court, while rejecting Sam’s legal arguments, ruled in his favor, reducing his obligation by the embezzled amount, stating that the deductions were no longer his money and that Ileana’s remedy was against the employer.r
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s decision.r
Ileana appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.r

r
r

Issue(s)

r

r
Whether a support obligation is discharged when the funds are deducted from the payor’s wages pursuant to a payroll deduction order, but are then embezzled by the employer before being transmitted to the recipient.r

r
r

Holding

r

r
No, because the purpose of Personal Property Law § 49-b is to augment, not substitute or diminish, the methods by which support orders might be enforced, to the end that family members and not the public welfare rolls bear the burden of support of their children; therefore, the support obligation is not fulfilled until the support money is actually received by the intended recipient.r

r
r

Court’s Reasoning

r

r
The Court of Appeals emphasized the strong public policy of enforcing support orders, noting that the legislature had consistently strengthened enforcement mechanisms.r
The payroll deduction order is an additional remedy, not an exclusive one. “The payroll deduction order allowed under section 49-b is plainly an additional — not exclusive — remedy for the beneficiary of a support order”.r
The court rejected the argument that the employer became the recipient’s