McLoughlin v. McLoughlin

213 A.D.2d 650, 624 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3146
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 27, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 650 (McLoughlin v. McLoughlin) 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
McLoughlin v. McLoughlin, 213 A.D.2d 650, 624 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, [651]*651the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Abrams, J.), entered November 30, 1993, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Fitzgibbon, H.E.), entered August 20, 1993, granting, after a hearing, the mother’s application for an upward modification of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Domestic Relations Law provides, in pertinent part, that "the court may properly direct a parent [as part of the parent’s basic child support obligation] to contribute to a child’s private college education, even in the absence of special circumstances or a voluntary agreement of the parties, so long as the court’s discretion is not improvidently exercised in that regard” (Manno v Manno, 196 AD2d 488, 491; see also, Cohen v Cohen, 203 AD2d 411; Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [7]). In determining whether to include such educational expenses as part of the parent’s basic child support obligation, the court must consider the circumstances of the case, the circumstances of the respective parties, the best interests of the child, and the requirements of justice (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [7]).

The record in this case evinces that, before directing the father to contribute one-half of his son’s unreimbursed private college expenses, the Family Court took into account each of the aforementioned factors. Accordingly, the Family Court’s determination was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Cohen v Cohen, supra; cf., Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 203 AD2d 563). Lawrence, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Manfrede v. Harris
2018 NY Slip Op 4730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Rabasco v. Lamar
106 A.D.3d 1095 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Paccione v. Paccione
57 A.D.3d 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Maurer v. Maurer
57 A.D.3d 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Levy v. Levy
52 A.D.3d 717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Saslow v. Saslow
305 A.D.2d 487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Chesler v. Bronstein
176 Misc. 2d 237 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
Murphy v. Murphy
243 A.D.2d 480 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Vainchenker v. Vainchenker
242 A.D.2d 620 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Peikon-Cotz v. Peikon
232 A.D.2d 644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Straker v. Straker
219 A.D.2d 707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
213 A.D.2d 650, 624 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcloughlin-v-mcloughlin-nyappdiv-1995.