Rosenthal v. Vaneria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenthal v. Vaneria

255 A.D.2d 243, 680 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12678

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 243 (Rosenthal v. Vaneria) 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

Rosenthal v. Vaneria, 255 A.D.2d 243, 680 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about February 25, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion for a downward modification of child support, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 26, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from an nonappealable order.

The IAS Court correctly found that the child’s residence at a facility for special needs children is not a permanent residence away from plaintiff’s residence, and therefore not an emancipation event under the parties’ separation agreement. Plaintiff showed that the facility endeavors to instill the skills needed to allow the children to return home, and that the child’s eligibility is determined on a year-to-year basis. We are also persuaded that the facility is akin to a boarding school, residence at which is specifically referred to in the separation agreement as “not in itself’ an emancipation event. Concur— Lerner, P. J., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about February 25, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion for a downward modification of child support, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 26, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from an nonappealable order.

The IAS Court correctly found that the child’s residence at a facility for special needs children is not a permanent residence away from plaintiff’s residence, and therefore not an emancipation event under the parties’ separation agreement. Plaintiff showed that the facility endeavors to instill the skills needed to allow the children to return home, and that the child’s eligibility is determined on a year-to-year basis. We are also persuaded that the facility is akin to a boarding school, residence at which is specifically referred to in the separation agreement as “not in itself’ an emancipation event. Concur— Lerner, P. J., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 243, 680 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenthal-v-vaneria-nyappdiv-1998.