Tan v. Tan
| Decision Date | 19 April 1999 |
| Citation | 260 A.D.2d 543,688 N.Y.S.2d 597 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | GRATA TAN, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ABRAHAM G. T. TAN, Appellant. |
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which directed the defendant to pay 70% of the child's future college expenses; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The trial court erred in directing the defendant to pay 70% of the child's future college expenses. At the time of trial, the child was 11 years old and was not attending college. There was no evidence as to his academic interest, ability, possible choice of college, or what his expenses might be. Consequently, the award for future college expenses was premature (see, Matter of Whittaker v Feldman, 113 AD2d 809, 811; see also, Matter of Walls v Walls, 221 AD2d 925; LaBombardi v LaBombardi, 220 AD2d 642; Friedman v Friedman, 216 AD2d 204; Gilkes v Gilkes, 150 AD2d 200).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Felix v. Felix
...v. Bibas, 58 A.D.3d 586, 588, 871 N.Y.S.2d 648; Matter of Halpern v. Kuruvilla, 280 A.D.2d 670, 670–671, 720 N.Y.S.2d 839; Tan v. Tan, 260 A.D.2d 543, 688 N.Y.S.2d 597; Granade–Bastuck v. Bastuck, 249 A.D.2d 444, 446, 671 N.Y.S.2d...
- GREEN POINT SAVINGS BANK v. Arnold