Murphy v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Murphy

243 A.D.2d 480, 664 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9330

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 480 (Murphy v. Murphy) 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

Murphy v. Murphy, 243 A.D.2d 480, 664 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support [481]*481proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered May 2, 1996, which sustained the mother’s objection to an order of the same court (Rodriguez, H.E.), dated October 31, 1996, which denied her petition for an upward modification of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (c) (7) allows the court to award educational expenses where it determines, “having regard for the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties and in the best interests of the child, and as justice requires, that * * * private * * * education for the child is appropriate” (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [7]; see also, Matter of Ramos v Ramos, 238 AD2d 427).

The Family Court considered these factors before directing the father to pay one-half of his daughter’s unreimbursed private college expenses. Accordingly, the Family Court’s determination to sustain the mother’s objection was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of McLoughlin v McLoughlin, 213 AD2d 650; cf, Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 203 AD2d 563, affd 85 NY2d 649). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In a support [481]*481proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered May 2, 1996, which sustained the mother’s objection to an order of the same court (Rodriguez, H.E.), dated October 31, 1996, which denied her petition for an upward modification of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (c) (7) allows the court to award educational expenses where it determines, “having regard for the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties and in the best interests of the child, and as justice requires, that * * * private * * * education for the child is appropriate” (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [7]; see also, Matter of Ramos v Ramos, 238 AD2d 427).

The Family Court considered these factors before directing the father to pay one-half of his daughter’s unreimbursed private college expenses. Accordingly, the Family Court’s determination to sustain the mother’s objection was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of McLoughlin v McLoughlin, 213 AD2d 650; cf, Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 203 AD2d 563, affd 85 NY2d 649). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 480, 664 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-murphy-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack