Haynes v. Haynes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haynes v. Haynes

5 A.D.3d 234, 772 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2649

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 234 (Haynes v. Haynes) 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

Haynes v. Haynes, 5 A.D.3d 234, 772 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered September 29, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion insofar as to direct defendant to continue to pay for the enrollment of the parties’ son in a residential facility, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The parties’ intent to be mutually bound to pay for the institutional care of their disabled adult son for the balance of his life is clear from their so-ordered stipulation, incorporated, but not merged, into their ensuing divorce judgment. Although, pursuant to the stipulation, defendant had the option of meeting his obligation by arranging for disbursements from trusts created by his parents to fund a supplemental needs trust for [235]*235his son’s benefit, his obligation did not, as he now contends, depend upon the feasibility of this option. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered September 29, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion insofar as to direct defendant to continue to pay for the enrollment of the parties’ son in a residential facility, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The parties’ intent to be mutually bound to pay for the institutional care of their disabled adult son for the balance of his life is clear from their so-ordered stipulation, incorporated, but not merged, into their ensuing divorce judgment. Although, pursuant to the stipulation, defendant had the option of meeting his obligation by arranging for disbursements from trusts created by his parents to fund a supplemental needs trust for [235]*235his son’s benefit, his obligation did not, as he now contends, depend upon the feasibility of this option. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 234, 772 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-haynes-nyappdiv-2004.