Majkowski v. Kulpa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Majkowski v. Kulpa

112 A.D.2d 720, 492 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56241

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 720 (Majkowski v. Kulpa) 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

Majkowski v. Kulpa, 112 A.D.2d 720, 492 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The only issue raised by petitioner is whether Family Court erred in refusing to terminate support for his daughter prior to her attaining the age of 21. The record shows that the daughter was unmarried and unemployed, lived on a farm with her mother and stepfather, helped with the farm chores, and received an allowance of $10 per week. We agree with Family Court that the proof does not establish that she was emancipated prior to her 21st birthday (see generally, Domestic Relations Law § 32 [3]; Family Ct Act § 413; Gittleman v Gittleman, 81 AD2d 632). (Appeal from order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Hartley, J. — terminate child support.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Green and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The only issue raised by petitioner is whether Family Court erred in refusing to terminate support for his daughter prior to her attaining the age of 21. The record shows that the daughter was unmarried and unemployed, lived on a farm with her mother and stepfather, helped with the farm chores, and received an allowance of $10 per week. We agree with Family Court that the proof does not establish that she was emancipated prior to her 21st birthday (see generally, Domestic Relations Law § 32 [3]; Family Ct Act § 413; Gittleman v Gittleman, 81 AD2d 632). (Appeal from order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Hartley, J. — terminate child support.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Green and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 720, 492 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/majkowski-v-kulpa-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack