Beekman-Ellner v. Ellner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beekman-Ellner v. Ellner

296 A.D.2d 404, 745 N.Y.S.2d 442, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7036

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 1, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 296 A.D.2d 404 (Beekman-Ellner v. Ellner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beekman-Ellner v. Ellner, 296 A.D.2d 404, 745 N.Y.S.2d 442, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an amended order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), entered September 19, 2001, which sustained the father’s objection to an order of the same court (Plosky, H.E.), dated July 9, 2001, dismissing his petition for modification of his child support obligation, and terminated the father’s support obligation as of June 29, 2001.

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the parties’ child enrolled in full-time training duty at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis and his life at Annapolis was largely controlled by the government, which also provided for the bulk of his material needs, he was clearly engaged in “active military service” to render him emancipated (see 10 USC § 101 [d] [1]; Zuckerman v Zuckerman, 154 AD2d 666). Santucci, J.P., Altman, S. Miller and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an amended order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), entered September 19, 2001, which sustained the father’s objection to an order of the same court (Plosky, H.E.), dated July 9, 2001, dismissing his petition for modification of his child support obligation, and terminated the father’s support obligation as of June 29, 2001.

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the parties’ child enrolled in full-time training duty at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis and his life at Annapolis was largely controlled by the government, which also provided for the bulk of his material needs, he was clearly engaged in “active military service” to render him emancipated (see 10 USC § 101 [d] [1]; Zuckerman v Zuckerman, 154 AD2d 666). Santucci, J.P., Altman, S. Miller and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 404, 745 N.Y.S.2d 442, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beekman-ellner-v-ellner-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack