Ramanath v. Ramanath

• Decision Date: 21 October 2021
• Docket Number: 527034, 528545, 529133
• Citation: 198 A.D.3d 1109,156 N.Y.S.3d 470
• Parties: In the Matter of Seemanti RAMANATH, Appellant, v. Ganpati RAMANATH, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) (And Another Related Proceeding.) In the Matter of Ganpati Ramanath, Respondent, v. Seemanti Ramanath, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) (And Another Related Proceeding.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

198 A.D.3d 1109
156 N.Y.S.3d 470

In the Matter of Seemanti RAMANATH, Appellant,
v.
Ganpati RAMANATH, Respondent.

(Proceeding No. 1.)

(And Another Related Proceeding.)

In the Matter of Ganpati Ramanath, Respondent,
v.
Seemanti Ramanath, Appellant.

(Proceeding No. 3.)

(And Another Related Proceeding.)

527034, 528545, 529133

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: September 14, 2021
Decided and Entered: October 21, 2021

156 N.Y.S.3d 471

Seemanti Ramanath, Cohoes, appellant pro se.

Sommers & Sommers, LLP, Albany (John T. Casey Jr., Troy, of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Aarons, J.

198 A.D.3d 1109

Appeals (1) from three orders of the Family Court of Rensselaer County (E. Walsh, J.), entered January 3, 2018 and January 17, 2019, which, among other things, partially dismissed petitioner's application, in proceeding No. 1 pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, to modify a prior order of support, and (2) from two orders of said court, entered January 17, 2019 and April 17, 2019, which, among other things, granted

198 A.D.3d 1110

petitioner's application, in proceeding No. 3 pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, to hold respondent in willful violation of a prior order of support.

Seemanti Ramanath (hereinafter the mother) and Ganpati Ramanath (hereinafter the father) are the parents of two children (born in 1996 and 1999). The parties were married in 1992 but subsequently divorced. In 2013, the parties entered into a separation and settlement agreement that was incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that the parties would equally share in the children's college expenses and that the consent of both parties

156 N.Y.S.3d 472

would be required as "a condition precedent to the parental obligation to contribute to the costs thereof, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld." The mother thereafter filed a modification petition, which was ultimately resolved in a January 2017 order entered on consent. According to that order, the mother's child support obligation was decreased due, in part, to the parties’ agreement to equally split the children's college expenses.

In August 2017, the mother commenced the first of these proceedings seeking to modify the January 2017 consent order. The mother sought, among other things, the elimination of her obligation to contribute to the children's college expenses. The father moved to dismiss the modification petition. The mother then filed a violation petition against the father. The Support Magistrate, as relevant here, partially granted the father's motion by dismissing so much of the modification petition as sought to eliminate the mother's obligation to contribute to the older child's college expenses. The Support Magistrate otherwise denied the motion and ordered a hearing on the issue of whether the mother consented to the younger child attending an out-of-state university and, therefore, had to contribute to such child's college expenses. The Support Magistrate also scheduled a hearing on the mother's violation petition. Prior to the hearing, however, the Support Magistrate dismissed the violation petition on the basis that the mother failed to allege sufficient facts to warrant her requested relief. In two separate January 2018 orders, Family Court denied the mother's objections to the Support Magistrate's determinations with respect to her modification and violation petitions.

Meanwhile, the father filed two violation petitions – one in...