Halpern v. Kuruvilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Halpern v. Kuruvilla

280 A.D.2d 670, 720 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1842

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 670 (Halpern v. Kuruvilla) 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

Halpern v. Kuruvilla, 280 A.D.2d 670, 720 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), entered March 23, 2000, which sustained objections to an order of the same court (Braxton, H.E.), dated February 17, 2000, denying the motion of Alex Kuruvilla to dismiss a petition to compel him to contribute to the future college tuition costs of the parties’ two children, granted the motion, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

At the time of the filing of the petition, the parties’ children [671]*671were 14 and 10 years old. The petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence establishing the children’s academic ability, interest in attending college, possible choice of college, or possible cost of college. Therefore a determination as to which party should pay for future college expenses is premature (see, Tan v Tan, 260 AD2d 543; Hamza v Hamza, 247 AD2d 444; Chitayat v Chitayat, 247 AD2d 573; LaBombardi v LaBombardi, 220 AD2d 642). Accordingly, the Family Court properly sustained the objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order and dismissed the proceeding. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Feuerstein, 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 petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), entered March 23, 2000, which sustained objections to an order of the same court (Braxton, H.E.), dated February 17, 2000, denying the motion of Alex Kuruvilla to dismiss a petition to compel him to contribute to the future college tuition costs of the parties’ two children, granted the motion, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

At the time of the filing of the petition, the parties’ children [671]*671were 14 and 10 years old. The petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence establishing the children’s academic ability, interest in attending college, possible choice of college, or possible cost of college. Therefore a determination as to which party should pay for future college expenses is premature (see, Tan v Tan, 260 AD2d 543; Hamza v Hamza, 247 AD2d 444; Chitayat v Chitayat, 247 AD2d 573; LaBombardi v LaBombardi, 220 AD2d 642). Accordingly, the Family Court properly sustained the objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order and dismissed the proceeding. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 670, 720 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halpern-v-kuruvilla-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack