Goldberg v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldberg v. Goldberg

2016 NY Slip Op 7412, 144 A.D.3d 475, 40 N.Y.S.3d 263

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 2016·No. 2165 301394/12·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen Gesmer, J.), entered February 5, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant father’s cross motion and declared that he is not entitled to any credit against his child support payments for his payments toward his youngest son’s college expenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ agreements are clear that defendant is responsible for the college expenses, including room and board, for the parties’ youngest son. Defendant is not entitled to a credit against his obligation to pay the child’s room and board expenses in the amount of his child support payments because no such credit was contemplated by the agreements (see Matter of Eagar v Suchan, 128 AD3d 961, 963 [2d Dept 2015]; Matter of Filosa v Donnelly, 94 AD3d 760, 761 [2d Dept 2012]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Tom, J.R, Sweeny, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen Gesmer, J.), entered February 5, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant father’s cross motion and declared that he is not entitled to any credit against his child support payments for his payments toward his youngest son’s college expenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ agreements are clear that defendant is responsible for the college expenses, including room and board, for the parties’ youngest son. Defendant is not entitled to a credit against his obligation to pay the child’s room and board expenses in the amount of his child support payments because no such credit was contemplated by the agreements (see Matter of Eagar v Suchan, 128 AD3d 961, 963 [2d Dept 2015]; Matter of Filosa v Donnelly, 94 AD3d 760, 761 [2d Dept 2012]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Tom, J.R, Sweeny, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.

Goldberg v. Goldberg, 2016 NY Slip Op 7412, 144 A.D.3d 475, 40 N.Y.S.3d 263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

2016 NY Slip Op 7412 (Goldberg v. Goldberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related