Connell v. Goding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Connell v. Goding

71 A.D.3d 765, 895 N.Y.S.2d 828

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 765 (Connell v. Goding) 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

Connell v. Goding, 71 A.D.3d 765, 895 N.Y.S.2d 828 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated October 23, 2008, as denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Blaustein, S.M.), dated July 2, 2008, as, after a hearing, directed him to contribute to the subject child’s private school costs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contention, under the circumstances [766]*766of this case, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his objections to so much of an order as, after a hearing, directed him to contribute to his daughter’s private school costs (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [7]; Massimi v Massimi, 35 AD3d 400 [2006]; Valente v Valente, 114 AD2d 951 [1985]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated October 23, 2008, as denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Blaustein, S.M.), dated July 2, 2008, as, after a hearing, directed him to contribute to the subject child’s private school costs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contention, under the circumstances [766]*766of this case, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his objections to so much of an order as, after a hearing, directed him to contribute to his daughter’s private school costs (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [7]; Massimi v Massimi, 35 AD3d 400 [2006]; Valente v Valente, 114 AD2d 951 [1985]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 765, 895 N.Y.S.2d 828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connell-v-goding-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack