Dicker v. Dicker
| Decision Date | 01 November 1967 |
| Citation | 54 Misc.2d 1089,283 N.Y.S.2d 941 |
| Parties | Pauline DICKER, Plaintiff, v. Alvin DICKER, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Motion to modify a separation decree so as to provide for payment by the defendant of college tuition and other incidental expenses for the minor child of the parties for as long as he is enrolled in college. The facts, in brief, are as follows:
The plaintiff obtained a judgment of separation from the defendant on October 7, 1963. The judgment required the defendant to pay to the plaintiff wife, for her support and maintenance and for the support and maintenance of their son, the sum of $47.50 per week. It is uncontroverted that defendant adhered strictly to the directions of the decree since its entry. The plaintiff is employed as a child guidance counselor in the school system of the City of New York earning $10,200 per year as of June 1967 and will receive an increment as a result of the recent teachers' strike. The defendant is employed by a labor union and his gross salary is $9,900 annually. Their son, who is now 20 years of age, had earnings of $1,900 during the summer vacation period in 1967. He attended a tuition-free college near his home for four semesters but because he failed to make the required grades, he was dropped. He thereupon applied for and was accepted conditionally by Long Island University, a private institution, which meant the payment of tuition of over $800 per semester. Plaintiff paid the first semester's tuition.
The sole question involved herein is whether or not a father is legally obligated to pay for his son's college education. It is basic that a parent must provide a common school education; in other words, such amount of education as is required by the state. From that point on the facts in each individual case must be taken under consideration, as there is no precise formula. In the absence of Special or unusual circumstances, a college education is not within the purview of 'necessaries' for which a parent can be obligated. As stated by the court in Halsted v. Halsted, 228 App.Div. 298, 299, 239 N.Y.S. 422, 423: 'Unlike the furnishing of a common school education to an infant, the furnishing of a classical or professional education by a parent to a child is not a 'necessary,' within the meaning of that term...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kagen v. Kagen
...the subject matter' (N.Y.Const., art. VI, § 19, subd. a), or to retain jurisdiction over such an action. (See, e.g., Dicker v. Dicker, 54 Misc.2d 1089, 283 N.Y.S.2d 941.) In such instances, the Supreme Court must exercise its discretion as to whether it would be appropriate to transfer a pa......
-
Bates v. Bates
... ... See: Kotkin v. Kerner, 29 A.D.2d 367, 288 N.Y.S.2d 244; Matthews v. Matthews, 14 A.D.2d 546, 217 N.Y.S.2d 736; Dicker ... v. Dicker, 54 Misc.2d 1089, 283 N.Y.S.2d 941; Weingast v. Weingast, 44 Misc.2d 952, 255 N.Y.S.2d 341 ... We pass now to ... ...
-
Weymann v. Weymann
...may be considered a moral obligation, a court order making such payments a matter of compulsion is unwarranted (Dicker v. Dicker, 54 Misc.2d 1089, 1090, 283 N.Y.S.2d 941, 942). A father may, however, by express and enforcible agreement, bind himself to make such payments. But the facts obta......