Tibaldi v. Otten

111 A.D.2d 859, 491 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50113
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 17, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 859 (Tibaldi v. Otten) 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
Tibaldi v. Otten, 111 A.D.2d 859, 491 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

In a proceeding to modify an award of child support, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Campbell, J.), entered March 13, 1984, which granted petitioner mother’s application for an increase in child support to be paid by the father to the extent of (1) increasing the sum for Michael Otten from $15 per week to $50 per week, (2) maintaining the sum for Denise Otten at $15 per week, (3) directing the father to pay $10 per week in arrears, for a total weekly payment of $75, retroactive to January 1, 1983, and (4) directing the father to pay one half of all of Denise Otten’s college tuition, room and board, supplies and equipment for the scholastic years 1983 to 1984, 1984 to 1985 and 1985 to 1986.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner’s request in this proceeding was predicated on the children’s right to receive adequate support, and thus “it was not necessary to demonstrate an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances to justify an increase” (Matter of Michaels v Michaels, 56 NY2d 924, 926). A sufficient factual basis for the upward modification in the best interests of the children has been established (Stevenson v Stevenson, 98 AD2d 718, 719).

Furthermore, upon review of the record, we find that petitioner has established “special circumstances” warranting the Family Court’s direction to the father to pay for one half of Denise’s college education (Kaplan v Wallshein, 57 AD2d 828, 829; Shapiro v Shapiro, 116 Misc 2d 40, 45). By complying with the order, the father will be paying his fair share of this mutual obligation (Giuffrida v Giuffrida, 81 AD2d 905, 906). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gonzalez v. Diaz
224 A.D.2d 528 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Ragazzo v. Murray
175 A.D.2d 247 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Maroney v. Maroney
173 A.D.2d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Harkavy v. Harkavy
167 A.D.2d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Montagnino v. Montagnino
163 A.D.2d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Haimowitz v. Gerber
153 A.D.2d 879 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Harvey v. Harvey
127 A.D.2d 819 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Bard v. Bard
125 A.D.2d 464 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 A.D.2d 859, 491 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tibaldi-v-otten-nyappdiv-1985.