Dompkowski v. Dompkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dompkowski v. Dompkowski

159 A.D.2d 1021, 552 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3349

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 1021 (Dompkowski v. Dompkowski) 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

Dompkowski v. Dompkowski, 159 A.D.2d 1021, 552 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent’s contention that the Hearing Examiner abused his discretion in directing him to pay one half of the college expenses of his daughter, Pamela, in an amount "not to exceed $3,500.00 per year” lacks merit. A parent may bind himself or herself to pay college expenses by express agreement (Kuniholm v Kuniholm, 11 NY2d 358; Matter of Vetrano v Calvey, 102 AD2d 932, 933; Matter of Buehler v Buehler, 73 AD2d 716). Here, respondent clearly agreed to share in the payment of his daughter’s college expenses "to the extent [he is] able” (see, Curtis v Curtis, 132 AD2d 850, [1022]*1022854; Matter of Vetrano v Calvey, supra, at 933; Matter of Cooke v Pieters, 123 Mise 2d 351). In our view, the Hearing Examiner did not abuse his discretion in determining that both parties had the financial ability to pay one half of their daughter’s college expenses, with respondent’s maximum financial obligation limited to $3,500 per year.

Because she failed to cross-appeal from the order, petitioner’s request for an order modifying the judgment of divorce to increase the amount of child support payments is not properly before us (see, Day v Day, 112 AD2d 972). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Manz, J. — modify child support.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent’s contention that the Hearing Examiner abused his discretion in directing him to pay one half of the college expenses of his daughter, Pamela, in an amount "not to exceed $3,500.00 per year” lacks merit. A parent may bind himself or herself to pay college expenses by express agreement (Kuniholm v Kuniholm, 11 NY2d 358; Matter of Vetrano v Calvey, 102 AD2d 932, 933; Matter of Buehler v Buehler, 73 AD2d 716). Here, respondent clearly agreed to share in the payment of his daughter’s college expenses "to the extent [he is] able” (see, Curtis v Curtis, 132 AD2d 850, [1022]*1022854; Matter of Vetrano v Calvey, supra, at 933; Matter of Cooke v Pieters, 123 Mise 2d 351). In our view, the Hearing Examiner did not abuse his discretion in determining that both parties had the financial ability to pay one half of their daughter’s college expenses, with respondent’s maximum financial obligation limited to $3,500 per year.

Because she failed to cross-appeal from the order, petitioner’s request for an order modifying the judgment of divorce to increase the amount of child support payments is not properly before us (see, Day v Day, 112 AD2d 972). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Manz, J. — modify child support.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 1021, 552 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dompkowski-v-dompkowski-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack