York v. York
| Decision Date | 23 February 1998 |
| Citation | 669 N.Y.S.2d 362,247 A.D.2d 612 |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 1707 Frances C. YORK, Appellant, v. John R. YORK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel C. Mooney, P.C., Mattituck (Michael L. Freedman, of counsel), for appellant.
Herman H. Tarnow, P.C., New York City, for respondent.
Before O'BRIEN, J.P., and RITTER, THOMPSON, FRIEDMANN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated April 13, 1987, the plaintiff former wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated December 6, 1996, as denied that branch of her motion which was for an upward modification of child support.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing and a new determination in accordance herewith.
The court erred in denying, without a hearing, that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an upward modification of child support, to include a portion of the expenses for the child's private secondary education. The child, who, at the time the instant application was made, was entering her junior year of high school, had attended Roman Catholic private school since the seventh grade. The plaintiff contends that she and the defendant agreed to send their child to "private, 'Catholic' School", and the defendant acknowledges that he voluntarily contributed "over $8,000.00 in the last five years towards his daughter's private education".
The defendant, in contending that he should not be compelled to contribute to the child's educational expenses, did not contend that the child should attend public school in Queens County where she currently resides. Rather, he asserted that the child should not have been withdrawn from the private school in Queens County which she attended for two years, and enrolled in a more expensive private school in Nassau County; in the alternative, he suggested that the child should reside with him in Connecticut so she could attend school there.
Since the parties' judgment of divorce and stipulation of settlement were silent as to the costs of private secondary education, the appropriate standard for review of the plaintiff's application is found inDomestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(c)(7) (see, Allen L. v. Myrna L., 224 A.D.2d 495, 496, 638 N.Y.S.2d 168; Romans v. Romans, 203 A.D.2d 549, 612 N.Y.S.2d 164). Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fruchter v. Fruchter
...defendant is able to provide the necessary funds. We therefore see no abuse of discretion in the court's determination (cf., York v York, 247 A.D.2d 612, 613; Matter of Peikon-Cotz v Peikon, 232 A.D.2d 644; see generally, Allen L. v Myrna L., 224 A.D.2d 495, Considering the relative financi......
-
Strugatch v. Strugatch
...even in the absence of a voluntary agreement (see Silverstein v. Silverstein, 107 A.D.3d 779, 967 N.Y.S.2d 406; York v. York, 247 A.D.2d 612, 669 N.Y.S.2d 362). In making a determination pursuant to that statute, a court must consider the circumstances of the respective parties, as well as ......
-
Garbitelli v. Broyles
...the petitioner's allegations. They were thus properly adjudicated to be in contempt without a hearing (see, e.g., York v. York, 247 A.D.2d 612, 669 N.Y.S.2d 362; Guiliano v. Carlisle, 236 A.D.2d 364, 653 N.Y.S.2d 635; Muller v. Muller, 233 A.D.2d 486, 650 N.Y.S.2d 290). The appellants' argu......