Ramos v. Ramos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramos v. Ramos

238 A.D.2d 427, 657 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3814

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

DecidedApril 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 427 (Ramos v. Ramos) 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

Ramos v. Ramos, 238 A.D.2d 427, 657 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Trainor, J.), entered January 10, 1996, as denied her objections to stated portions of an order of the same court (Buse, H.E.), dated September 26, 1995, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed her to contribute to the children’s private school tuition.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof denying the mother’s objection to so much of the order dated September 26, 1995, as directed her to contribute the sum of $296 per month toward the children’s private school tuition and substituting therefor a provision granting that objection to the extent of directing the mother to contribute the sum of [428]*428$123 per month toward the son’s private school tuition; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Family Court Act § 413 (1) (c) (7) provides that the court may 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”. The court clearly considered these factors and properly exercised its discretion in directing the mother to contribute to the son’s private school tuition. However, there is no similar basis in the record to justify the court’s direction to contribute to the other child’s private school tuition (see, Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 203 AD2d 563, affd on other grounds, 85 NY2d 649). We note that, contrary to the mother’s contention, the Hearing Examiner did not direct her to pay tuition arrears retroactive to August 19, 1994. The mother’s obligation to contribute to private school tuition became effective September 1; 1995, and therefore arrears would be retroactive to that date.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Luciano, 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 mother appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Trainor, J.), entered January 10, 1996, as denied her objections to stated portions of an order of the same court (Buse, H.E.), dated September 26, 1995, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed her to contribute to the children’s private school tuition.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof denying the mother’s objection to so much of the order dated September 26, 1995, as directed her to contribute the sum of $296 per month toward the children’s private school tuition and substituting therefor a provision granting that objection to the extent of directing the mother to contribute the sum of [428]*428$123 per month toward the son’s private school tuition; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Family Court Act § 413 (1) (c) (7) provides that the court may 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”. The court clearly considered these factors and properly exercised its discretion in directing the mother to contribute to the son’s private school tuition. However, there is no similar basis in the record to justify the court’s direction to contribute to the other child’s private school tuition (see, Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 203 AD2d 563, affd on other grounds, 85 NY2d 649). We note that, contrary to the mother’s contention, the Hearing Examiner did not direct her to pay tuition arrears retroactive to August 19, 1994. The mother’s obligation to contribute to private school tuition became effective September 1; 1995, and therefore arrears would be retroactive to that date.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 427, 657 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-ramos-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack