Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fifth District (Dennis M. Cohen, J.), entered November 15, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $2,179.20. At trial, plaintiff established, and defendant did not contest, that, pursuant to a stipulation of settlement between the parties made in connection with their divorce action, $2,075.20, intended for child support, had been deducted from plaintiff's salary and paid over to the Department of Social Services Also Known as Suffolk County Child Support Enforcement (Enforcement Bureau), which, in turn, had paid that money over to defendant. Plaintiff further established that the Appellate Division had subsequently vacated the stipulation of settlement on the ground that it contemplated payments in excess of those mandated by the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA), but failed to include certain mandatory recitations as to the parties' reasons for their departure from CSSA guidelines (Baranek v Baranek, 54 AD3d 789 [2008]; see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [h]). Following the vacatur of the stipulation of settlement, plaintiff requested a refund from the Enforcement Bureau of payments which had been collected pursuant to the vacated stipulation of settlement. His request was denied on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau had disbursed the money. Plaintiff brought this small claims action to recover the funds which had been deducted from his salary pursuant to the judicially vacated stipulation of settlement. After a nonjury trial, the action was dismissed.

We are mindful that, in this action, the underlying stipulation of settlement was vacated, thus nullifying the basis for the contested payments. However, we note the strong public policy against restitution and recoupment of support overpayments (see People ex rel. Breitstein v Aaronson, 3 AD3d 588 [2004]; Matter of Dower v Niewiadomski, 286 AD2d 948 [2001]; Crosswell v Crosswell, 21 Misc 3d 131[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52051[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]), even where, as here, the underlying support order has been retroactively vacated (see Horne v Pearman, 2003 NY Slip Op 51324[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]). We therefore conclude that the judgment dismissing the complaint rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA 1804, 1807). [*2]

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaSalle and Marano, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 11, 2013