Matter of VanBeers v. VanBeers

129 A.D.3d 1095, 12 N.Y.S.3d 238
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 24, 2015
Docket2014-08394
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 129 A.D.3d 1095 (Matter of VanBeers v. VanBeers) 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
Matter of VanBeers v. VanBeers, 129 A.D.3d 1095, 12 N.Y.S.3d 238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Carol S. Klein, J.), entered July 29, 2014. The order denied the father’s objections to an order of that court (Christine Patneaude Krahulik, S.M.), dated June 24, 2014, which, after a hearing, inter alia, awarded the mother certain child support arrears and calculated the father’s share of the child’s college expenses in accordance with the parties’ dissolution agreement.

Ordered that the order entered July 29, 2014, is affirmed, with costs.

The Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order (see Matter of Mahoney v Goggins, 24 AD3d 668, 669 [2005]). In reviewing a determination of the Family Court, great deference should be given to the determination of the Support Magistrate, who was in the best position to hear and evaluate the evidence, as well as the credibility of the witnesses (see Matter of Musarra v Musarra, 28 AD3d 668, 669 [2006]). Contrary to the father’s contentions, the Family Court properly determined, under the circumstances presented here, that the father was not relieved of his contractual obligation to contribute to the child’s college expenses on the ground that the mother did not adequately discuss the matter with him, where the evidence demonstrated that the mother had made attempts to do so, and that the father failed to respond to those attempts (see Gretz v Gretz, 109 AD3d 788 [2013]; Matter of Parker v Parker, 74 AD3d 1076, 1077 [2010]; Matter of Heinlein v Kuzemka, 49 AD3d 996, 998 [2008]).

The father’s remaining contention is without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Neimark v. Lefferts
2026 NY Slip Op 00380 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
Matter of Monti v. DiBedendetto
2017 NY Slip Op 4847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Casey v. Kelleran
2017 NY Slip Op 1688 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Yuen v. Sindhwani
137 A.D.3d 1155 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Rockland County Department of Social Services Ex Rel. Abels v. Shisgal
137 A.D.3d 1150 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 A.D.3d 1095, 12 N.Y.S.3d 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-vanbeers-v-vanbeers-nyappdiv-2015.