Thompson v. Malcolm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. Malcolm

71 A.D.3d 1154, 896 N.Y.S.2d 901

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

DecidedMarch 30, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 1154 (Thompson v. Malcolm) 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

Thompson v. Malcolm, 71 A.D.3d 1154, 896 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Morales-Horowitz, J.), dated July 8, 2009, which denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Jordan, S.M.) dated May 19, 2009, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the mother’s petition which was to direct him to pay his pro rata share of the child’s college education and directed him to contribute the sum of $351 biweekly toward the cost of such education.

Ordered that the order dated July 8, 2009, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the father should pay a pro rata share of that portion of his [1155]*1155daughter’s educational expenses at Penn State University that did not include room and board (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [7]; Lee v Lee, 18 AD3d 508, 512 [2005]; Chan v Chan, 267 AD2d 413, 414 [1999]; Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 203 AD2d 563 [1994]; Manno v Manno, 196 AD2d 488 [1993]).

The father’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Chambers, 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 an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Morales-Horowitz, J.), dated July 8, 2009, which denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Jordan, S.M.) dated May 19, 2009, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the mother’s petition which was to direct him to pay his pro rata share of the child’s college education and directed him to contribute the sum of $351 biweekly toward the cost of such education.

Ordered that the order dated July 8, 2009, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the father should pay a pro rata share of that portion of his [1155]*1155daughter’s educational expenses at Penn State University that did not include room and board (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [7]; Lee v Lee, 18 AD3d 508, 512 [2005]; Chan v Chan, 267 AD2d 413, 414 [1999]; Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 203 AD2d 563 [1994]; Manno v Manno, 196 AD2d 488 [1993]).

The father’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 1154, 896 N.Y.S.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-malcolm-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack