consideration of numerous factors in New York

2007Under Tax Law § 1131 (1), responsible persons include “any officer, director or employee of a corporation . . . who ... is under a duty to act for such corporation ... in complying with any requirement of . . . article [28].” This factual determination will include a consideration of numerous factors, including whether the targeted person has the authority to sign the corporate tax returns (see 20 NYCRR 526.11 [b] [2]; Matter of Hall v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 176 AD2d 1006, 1006 [1991]).

2007Other pertinent factors include a person’s “status as an officer, authority to sign checks and responsibility for management of the corporation” (Matter of Hall v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., supra at 1006; see Matter of Menik v Roth, 280 AD2d 702, 702 [2001]; Matter of Abrams v Tax Appeals Trib., 216 AD2d 684, 685 [1995]; Matter of Landau v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 214 AD2d 857, 857-858 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 705 [1995]).

2007Other pertinent factors include a person’s “status as an officer, authority to sign checks and responsibility for management of the corporation” (Matter of Hall v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., supra at 1006; see Matter of Menik v Roth, 280 AD2d 702, 702 [2001]; Matter of Abrams v Tax Appeals Trib., 216 AD2d 684, 685 [1995]; Matter of Landau v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 214 AD2d 857, 857-858 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 705 [1995]).

2007Other pertinent factors include a person’s “status as an officer, authority to sign checks and responsibility for management of the corporation” (Matter of Hall v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., supra at 1006; see Matter of Menik v Roth, 280 AD2d 702, 702 [2001]; Matter of Abrams v Tax Appeals Trib., 216 AD2d 684, 685 [1995]; Matter of Landau v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 214 AD2d 857, 857-858 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 705 [1995]).

2007This determination requires the consideration of numerous factors which include, among other things, each parties’ ability to provide for the child’s intellectual and emotional development, and the stability and quality of their respective environments; no single factor is dispositive (see Matter of Roe v Roe, 33 AD3d 1152, 1153 [2006]; Matter of Lopez v Robinson, supra at 1035).

2007Guided by the recognition that Family Court has the unique ability to assess the witnesses’ credibility, we will accord its factual determinations deference if we find them supported by the record (see Matter of Roe v Roe, supra at 1153; Matter of Lopez v Robinson, supra at 1035).

2007This determination requires the consideration of numerous factors which include, among other things, each parties’ ability to provide for the child’s intellectual and emotional development, and the stability and quality of their respective environments; no single factor is dispositive (see Matter of Roe v Roe, 33 AD3d 1152, 1153 [2006]; Matter of Lopez v Robinson, supra at 1035).

2007Guided by the recognition that Family Court has the unique ability to assess the witnesses’ credibility, we will accord its factual determinations deference if we find them supported by the record (see Matter of Roe v Roe, supra at 1153; Matter of Lopez v Robinson, supra at 1035).

2007Other pertinent factors include a person’s “status as an officer, authority to sign checks and responsibility for management of the corporation” (Matter of Hall v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., supra at 1006; see Matter of Menik v Roth, 280 AD2d 702, 702 [2001]; Matter of Abrams v Tax Appeals Trib., 216 AD2d 684, 685 [1995]; Matter of Landau v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 214 AD2d 857, 857-858 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 705 [1995]).

2004This equitable relief, extraordinary in nature, must be made upon a consideration of numerous factors, which include a showing of a clear legal right to the relief sought and that a judicial or quasijudicial body or officer is “ ‘proceeding] without or in excess of its jurisdiction’ ” (Matter of McLaughlin v Eidens, 292 AD2d 712, 713 [2002], quoting Matter of Haggerty v Himelein, 89 NY2d 431, 435 [1997]).

2004Moreover, “[i]n the absence of a showing that petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if relegated to another avenue of judicial review” (Matter of McLaughlin v Eidens, supra at 713), this remedy, like declaratory relief, will not be available where there exists an adequate legal remedy (see id. at 713 ; Matter of Whitehurst v Kavanagh, 218 AD2d 366, 368 [1996], lv dismissed, lv denied 88 NY2d 873 [1996]).

2004Although Supreme Court may have been motivated to make its distribution by simplicity, not a pertinent factor, our review of the record suggests that consideration of the appropriate factors supports the distribution, particularly in view of the respective separate property holdings (see Munson v Munson, 250 AD2d 1004 [1998]) and the continued employment of defendant and the retirement of plaintiff (see Butler v Butler, 256 AD2d 1041, 1045 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 805 [1999]).

2004This equitable relief, extraordinary in nature, must be made upon a consideration of numerous factors, which include a showing of a clear legal right to the relief sought and that a judicial or quasijudicial body or officer is “ ‘proceeding] without or in excess of its jurisdiction’ ” (Matter of McLaughlin v Eidens, 292 AD2d 712, 713 [2002], quoting Matter of Haggerty v Himelein, 89 NY2d 431, 435 [1997]).

2004Moreover, “[i]n the absence of a showing that petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if relegated to another avenue of judicial review” (Matter of McLaughlin v Eidens, supra at 713), this remedy, like declaratory relief, will not be available where there exists an adequate legal remedy (see id. at 713 ; Matter of Whitehurst v Kavanagh, 218 AD2d 366, 368 [1996], lv dismissed, lv denied 88 NY2d 873 [1996]).

1999This involves a consideration of numerous factors which include “the quality of the respective parent’s home environment, the length of time the present custody arrangement has been in effect and each parent’s performance thereunder, as well as each parent’s relative fitness and ability to guide and provide for the child’s intellectual and emotional development” (Matter of Machukas v Wagner, 246 AD2d 840, 841 , lv denied 91 NY2d 813 ; see, Matter of De Losh v De Losh, 235 AD2d 851, 852 , lv denied 89 NY2d 813 ; Matter of Guadagno v Guadagno, 235 AD2d 854 ; Matter of Alice A. v Joshua B., 232 A