Levenglick v. Levenglick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levenglick v. Levenglick

115 A.D.3d 595, 982 N.Y.S.2d 320

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 595 (Levenglick v. Levenglick) 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

Levenglick v. Levenglick, 115 A.D.3d 595, 982 N.Y.S.2d 320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lori S. Sattler, J.), entered on or about August 27, 2013, as amended [596]*596September 11, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion to enforce a provision of the parties’ stipulation of settlement and directed plaintiff to pay unpaid and future tuition for the undergraduate education of the parties’ emancipated daughter, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The challenged order was superseded by a subsequent order of the same court and Judge, entered on or about September 30, 2013, from which no appeal was taken (see Matter of Pedro A. v Susan M., 95 AD3d 458 [1st Dept 2012]). The subsequent order rescinded the order on appeal to the extent that it directed plaintiff to make payments to Columbia University and to defendant on behalf of the parties’ emancipated child, and directed that a special referee determine whether the parties intended for plaintiff to pay for the child’s college expenses after she reached the age of 21.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, Saxe and Freedman, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lori S. Sattler, J.), entered on or about August 27, 2013, as amended [596]*596September 11, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion to enforce a provision of the parties’ stipulation of settlement and directed plaintiff to pay unpaid and future tuition for the undergraduate education of the parties’ emancipated daughter, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The challenged order was superseded by a subsequent order of the same court and Judge, entered on or about September 30, 2013, from which no appeal was taken (see Matter of Pedro A. v Susan M., 95 AD3d 458 [1st Dept 2012]). The subsequent order rescinded the order on appeal to the extent that it directed plaintiff to make payments to Columbia University and to defendant on behalf of the parties’ emancipated child, and directed that a special referee determine whether the parties intended for plaintiff to pay for the child’s college expenses after she reached the age of 21.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, Saxe and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 595, 982 N.Y.S.2d 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levenglick-v-levenglick-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack