Toppel v. Toppel

67 A.D.2d 628, 412 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10155
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 9, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 67 A.D.2d 628 (Toppel v. Toppel) 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
Toppel v. Toppel, 67 A.D.2d 628, 412 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 5, 1978, insofar as appealed from, which, inter alia, awarded custody of Lori to defendant and directed plaintiff to made additional support payments of $200 per week to the defendant for the support and maintenance of that child, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, by vacating those provisions (1) awarding custody to the defendant and (2) directing the payment of additional support in the sum of $200, and, as modified, otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. A parent may not be awarded the custody of a child over 18 years of age (Domestic Relations Law, §§ 2, 240; Blauner v Blauner, 60 AD2d 215, 218; Silverman v Silverman, 50 AD2d 824). Hence, it was improper for the court to have awarded custody of Lori to the defendant. Although Lori had reached her majority, the plaintiff and the defendant were both under a continuing duty to support her until she reached 21 years of age. (Family Ct Act, §§ 413, 414; Matter of Parker v Stage, 43 NY2d 128, 133; Blauner v Blauner, supra; Stern v Stern, 59 AD2d 857; Matter of Carter v Carter, 58 AD2d 438.) However, the record indicates that, even without the additional payment of $200 per week, Lori was receiving more than adequate support from both parents. Therefore, it was an abuse of discretion for the court to direct that the plaintiff make the additional payments of $200 per week to the defendant for the support and maintenance of the child during the four-[629]*629month period that the child was not attending school. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Silverman, Evans and Fein, JJ.

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

Related

Herschorn v. Herschorn
92 A.D.3d 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Larock v. Larock
36 A.D.3d 1177 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People ex rel. Minardi v. Cesnavicius
208 A.D.2d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Belsky v. Belsky
172 A.D.2d 576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Pizzuto v. Pizzuto
162 A.D.2d 443 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
In re Frederick W.
120 Misc. 2d 335 (NYC Family Court, 1983)
MacFadden v. Martini
119 Misc. 2d 94 (NYC Family Court, 1983)
Joye v. Schechter
112 Misc. 2d 172 (NYC Family Court, 1982)
Jane S. D. v. Francis X. D.
110 Misc. 2d 737 (New York Family Court, 1981)
Theresa H. v. Pasquale G.
102 Misc. 2d 759 (NYC Family Court, 1980)
Sacco v. Sacco
69 A.D.2d 1004 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 A.D.2d 628, 412 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toppel-v-toppel-nyappdiv-1979.