Meeg v. Meeg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meeg v. Meeg

273 A.D.2d 390, 710 N.Y.S.2d 924, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7060

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

DecidedJune 19, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 390 (Meeg v. Meeg) 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

Meeg v. Meeg, 273 A.D.2d 390, 710 N.Y.S.2d 924, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7060 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated February 5, 1999, as denied his objection to so much of an order of the same court (Spegele, H.E.), dated December 30, 1998, as directed him to pay school transportation expenses for the parties’ children pursuant to the stipulation of settlement in the divorce action.

Ordered that the order dated February 5, 1999, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the appellant’s objection to so much of the order dated December 30, 1998, as directed him to pay school transportation expenses is sustained.

The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in their divorce action which was later incorporated by reference into a judgment of divorce. Prior to execution of the stipulation, the parties deleted a provision which would have required the father to pay 96% of their children’s school transportation expense. The Hearing Officer erred in giving effect to this provision and finding that the father was responsible for payment of such expenses (see, Wilson v Neppell, 253 AD2d 493; Joseph v Creek & Pines, 217 AD2d 534; Wuestenhoefer v Friedlander/Wuestenhoefer, Inc,, 213 AD2d 632; Aguirre v City of New York, 214 AD2d 692; Matter of Zaremba v Interface Flooring Sys., 195 AD2d 471; Torsiello v Torsiello, 188 AD2d 523). Sullivan, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated February 5, 1999, as denied his objection to so much of an order of the same court (Spegele, H.E.), dated December 30, 1998, as directed him to pay school transportation expenses for the parties’ children pursuant to the stipulation of settlement in the divorce action.

Ordered that the order dated February 5, 1999, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the appellant’s objection to so much of the order dated December 30, 1998, as directed him to pay school transportation expenses is sustained.

The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in their divorce action which was later incorporated by reference into a judgment of divorce. Prior to execution of the stipulation, the parties deleted a provision which would have required the father to pay 96% of their children’s school transportation expense. The Hearing Officer erred in giving effect to this provision and finding that the father was responsible for payment of such expenses (see, Wilson v Neppell, 253 AD2d 493; Joseph v Creek & Pines, 217 AD2d 534; Wuestenhoefer v Friedlander/Wuestenhoefer, Inc,, 213 AD2d 632; Aguirre v City of New York, 214 AD2d 692; Matter of Zaremba v Interface Flooring Sys., 195 AD2d 471; Torsiello v Torsiello, 188 AD2d 523). Sullivan, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 390, 710 N.Y.S.2d 924, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meeg-v-meeg-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack