Sloan v. Sloan
| Decision Date | 14 November 1955 |
| Citation | 145 N.Y.S.2d 797,286 A.D. 1102 |
| Parties | Elsie SLOAN, respondent, v. Robert SLOAN, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Noah L. Braunstein, New York City, for appellant.
Louis Okin, New York City, for respondent.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and WENZEL, BELDOCK, MURPHY and UGHETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
On November 29, 1944, plaintiff obtained a judgment of separation against defendant on the ground of abandonment and nonsupport. The judgment provided that defendant pay $25 a week for the support of plaintiff and the then infant daughter. There were various modifications of the judgment, the final one being on February 18, 1954, at which time defendant was directed to pay $165 a week for the support of plaintiff and the then infant daughter. On December 16, 1954, the daughter became of age. In May, 1955, defendant moved to modify the amended judgment by eliminating that part of the $165 a week which is allocable to the support of the daughter on the ground that she had become of age. Defendant's motion was denied, and plaintiff's motion for an allowance for her counsel was granted.
Order modified by striking therefrom the first ordering paragraph and remitting defendant's motion to modify the judgment to Special Term for the taking of testimony as to the financial condition of the parties. As so modified, order affirmed, witout costs.
Defendant may not be compelled to support his child after she became twenty-one, in the absence of a showing of unusual circumstances. Lair v. Lair, 276 App.Div. 775, 92 N.Y.S.2d 677. The fact that the child is attending college is not an unusual circumstance within the meaning of this rule. Halsted v. Halsted, 228 App.Div. 298, 239 N.Y.S. 422. However, the fact that the child is over twenty-one does not mean that defendant is automatically entitled to a reduction of the total amount payable for the support of plaintiff and the daughter. In Malamat v. Malamat, 264 App.Div. 795, 35 N.Y.S.2d 199 and Welton v. Wilton, 260 App.Div. 876, 22 N.Y.S.2d 909, the right to the reduction of alimony sought by the father because of the emancipation of one of the children was held to be offset by a change in circumstances due to the increased cost of maintenance of the other child. In Barker v Barker, Sup., 45 N.Y.S.2d 809, it was held that, despite the emancipation of the children, the circumstances required that the amount formerly paid for the wife and children should be paid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grishaver v. Grishaver
...to support ceased at the time the son reached his majority (Bruce v. Bruce, 275 App.Div. 808, 89 N.Y.S.2d 94; cf. Sloan v. Sloan, 286 App .Div. 1102, 145 N.Y.S.2d 797). As for the monies expended by the plaintiff for the son prior to his majority, the evidence shows that the greater part wa......
-
Zalka v. Zalka
...collected in 18 A.L.R.2d at pp. 83 et seq.; but see Welton v. Welton, 1940, 260 App.Div. 876, 22 N.Y.S.2D 909; Sloan v. Sloan, 1955, 286 App.Div. 1102, 145 N.Y.S.2d 797; Barker v. Barker, Sup.1943, 45 N.Y.S.2d 809. It cannot reasonably be contended that, by specifying in the decree that the......
-
Hirsch v. Hirsch
...(see, Halsted v. Halsted, 228 App.Div. 298, 239 N.Y.S. 422; Lair v. Lair, 276 App.Div. 775, 92 N.Y.S.2d 677; Sloan v. Sloan, 286 App.Div. 1102, 145 N.Y.S.2d 797; Greenberg v. Greenberg, 27 A.D.2d 952, 279 N.Y.S.2d 363). In most of these decisions, the court cited former Social Welfare Law §......
-
Lord v. Lord
...1013, 1015; Lynch v. Lynch, 47 A.D.2d 928, 367 N.Y.S.2d 66; Greenberg v. Greenberg, 27 A.D.2d 952, 279 N.Y.S.2d 363; Sloan v. Sloan, 286 App.Div. 1102, 145 N.Y.S.2d 797; Lair v. Lair, 276 App.Div. 775, 92 N.Y.S.2d 677. It is equally clear that the fact that the child is attending college Is......