Karetny v. Karetny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karetny v. Karetny

283 A.D.2d 250, 724 N.Y.S.2d 410, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5054

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 2001·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about May 3, 2000, which, after a hearing, denied plaintiff’s motion to enforce that part of his stipulation of settlement with defendant, incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce, as provides for the education of their child through high school only in an Orthodox Jewish yeshiva, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports findings that the child has Tourette’s Syndrome, a neurological disorder aggravated by stress, that [251]*251the child’s symptoms diminished considerably once defendant took her out of the yeshiva she had been attending for three years and enrolled her in public school, that the longer school day at yeshiva is a source of stress for the child, and that adherence to the stipulation is therefore not in the child’s best interests (see, Gruber v Gruber, 87 AD2d 246, 250). Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Lerner and Saxe, 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 on or about May 3, 2000, which, after a hearing, denied plaintiff’s motion to enforce that part of his stipulation of settlement with defendant, incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce, as provides for the education of their child through high school only in an Orthodox Jewish yeshiva, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports findings that the child has Tourette’s Syndrome, a neurological disorder aggravated by stress, that [251]*251the child’s symptoms diminished considerably once defendant took her out of the yeshiva she had been attending for three years and enrolled her in public school, that the longer school day at yeshiva is a source of stress for the child, and that adherence to the stipulation is therefore not in the child’s best interests (see, Gruber v Gruber, 87 AD2d 246, 250). Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Karetny v. Karetny, 283 A.D.2d 250, 724 N.Y.S.2d 410, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5054 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

283 A.D.2d 250 (Karetny v. Karetny) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related