Roy v. Roy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roy v. Roy

188 A.D.2d 274, 590 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13514

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 274 (Roy v. Roy) 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

Roy v. Roy, 188 A.D.2d 274, 590 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered December 6, 1991, which denied respondent’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s modification of a prior support order, inter alia, terminating petitioner’s $168 biweekly obligation for the parties’ daughter’s private school tuition and imposing on respondent a $150 monthly obligation for the parties’ son’s college education, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Prior to the application, the parties’ son, in petitioner father’s custody, attended public high school, and their daughter, in respondent mother’s custody, attended private high school, to which expense petitioner was required to contribute $168 biweekly. Petitioner’s application was prompted by the son’s enrollment in college at a cost of $8700 after financial aid, and the daughter’s transfer to public high school.

We agree with the Hearing Examiner that this was a significant change of circumstances warranting a modification of the support order. We also agree with the Hearing Examiner that the unusual custody arrangement here, with each parent having custody of one child, would have made application of the factors set forth in Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f) (1)-(10) "unjust and inappropriate” (see generally, Tippins, New York Matrimonial Law and Practice § 5A:57, at 1109).

We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them to lack merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered December 6, 1991, which denied respondent’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s modification of a prior support order, inter alia, terminating petitioner’s $168 biweekly obligation for the parties’ daughter’s private school tuition and imposing on respondent a $150 monthly obligation for the parties’ son’s college education, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Prior to the application, the parties’ son, in petitioner father’s custody, attended public high school, and their daughter, in respondent mother’s custody, attended private high school, to which expense petitioner was required to contribute $168 biweekly. Petitioner’s application was prompted by the son’s enrollment in college at a cost of $8700 after financial aid, and the daughter’s transfer to public high school.

We agree with the Hearing Examiner that this was a significant change of circumstances warranting a modification of the support order. We also agree with the Hearing Examiner that the unusual custody arrangement here, with each parent having custody of one child, would have made application of the factors set forth in Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f) (1)-(10) "unjust and inappropriate” (see generally, Tippins, New York Matrimonial Law and Practice § 5A:57, at 1109).

We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them to lack merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 274, 590 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-v-roy-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack