Maiolica v. Maiolica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maiolica v. Maiolica

30 A.D.3d 603, 816 N.Y.S.2d 386

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

DecidedJune 20, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 603 (Maiolica v. Maiolica) 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

Maiolica v. Maiolica, 30 A.D.3d 603, 816 N.Y.S.2d 386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a postdivorce proceeding for child support under Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eisman, J.), dated August 18, 2005, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Watson, S.M.) dated June 30, 2005, which, after a hearing, found that he was obligated to pay a portion of the son’s summer camp expenses.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly found that summer camp expenses for the parties’ son constitute child care expenses and directed the petitioner father to pay a portion of these expenses in accordance with his pro rata share of the parties’ income (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [4]; Sieratzki v Sieratzki, 8 AD3d 552 [2004]; Cohen-Davidson v Davidson, 255 AD2d 414, 415 [1998]). Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

In a postdivorce proceeding for child support under Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eisman, J.), dated August 18, 2005, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Watson, S.M.) dated June 30, 2005, which, after a hearing, found that he was obligated to pay a portion of the son’s summer camp expenses.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly found that summer camp expenses for the parties’ son constitute child care expenses and directed the petitioner father to pay a portion of these expenses in accordance with his pro rata share of the parties’ income (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [4]; Sieratzki v Sieratzki, 8 AD3d 552 [2004]; Cohen-Davidson v Davidson, 255 AD2d 414, 415 [1998]). Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 603, 816 N.Y.S.2d 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maiolica-v-maiolica-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack