Catalano v. Catalano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Catalano v. Catalano

49 A.D.3d 537, 854 N.Y.2d 148

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 537 (Catalano v. Catalano) 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

Catalano v. Catalano, 49 A.D.3d 537, 854 N.Y.2d 148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[538]*538By order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Miklitsch, H.E.), dated October 4, 2000, the respondent was directed to contribute the sum of $3,000 per year to the cost of the college education of the parties’ daughter, “so long as she is in college.” Although the respondent stipulated at a hearing that the daughter graduated in May 2004, the petitioner effectively was denied the opportunity to proffer evidence that the daughter was enrolled in and attended college during the 2003/04 school year (cf. Matter of Carmen V. v Bruce R., 87 AD2d 595, 596 [1982]). The Support Magistrate then denied that branch of the petition which sought reimbursement of the college expenses pertaining to that period upon concluding that the petitioner failed to submit evidence of the daughter’s enrollment and attendance during the relevant time period. Since, however, the Support Magistrate effectively precluded the petitioner from proffering the appropriate evidence, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Rockland County, for a hearing, with the benefit of the submission of such evidence, on that branch of the petition.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

[538]*538By order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Miklitsch, H.E.), dated October 4, 2000, the respondent was directed to contribute the sum of $3,000 per year to the cost of the college education of the parties’ daughter, “so long as she is in college.” Although the respondent stipulated at a hearing that the daughter graduated in May 2004, the petitioner effectively was denied the opportunity to proffer evidence that the daughter was enrolled in and attended college during the 2003/04 school year (cf. Matter of Carmen V. v Bruce R., 87 AD2d 595, 596 [1982]). The Support Magistrate then denied that branch of the petition which sought reimbursement of the college expenses pertaining to that period upon concluding that the petitioner failed to submit evidence of the daughter’s enrollment and attendance during the relevant time period. Since, however, the Support Magistrate effectively precluded the petitioner from proffering the appropriate evidence, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Rockland County, for a hearing, with the benefit of the submission of such evidence, on that branch of the petition.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 537, 854 N.Y.2d 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catalano-v-catalano-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack