Turecki v. Turecki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turecki v. Turecki

211 A.D.2d 450, 621 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 157

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 450 (Turecki v. Turecki) 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

Turecki v. Turecki, 211 A.D.2d 450, 621 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 157 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about June 13, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion (a) to enforce the judgment of divorce dated June 1, 1987 and entered July 29, 1987, directing plaintiff to pay for all college expenses of the children of the marriage and compelling plaintiff to make full restitution to the children for all past college expenses paid by the children and (b) for counsel fees in the sum of $10,000.00 incurred in connection with the prosecution of this motion, and granted plaintiff’s cross-motion to dismiss defendant’s motion, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although defendant had standing to seek enforcement of the provision in the parties’ Separation Agreement and divorce judgment obligating plaintiff to pay the children’s college expenses, the IAS Court correctly held that plaintiff had not violated the Agreement and the New York Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (EPTL 7-4.1 et seq.) by directing the children to use their custodial accounts, which were funded by plaintiff, to pay their college expenses. The court also did not improperly exercise its discretion in denying defendant an award of counsel fees. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about June 13, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion (a) to enforce the judgment of divorce dated June 1, 1987 and entered July 29, 1987, directing plaintiff to pay for all college expenses of the children of the marriage and compelling plaintiff to make full restitution to the children for all past college expenses paid by the children and (b) for counsel fees in the sum of $10,000.00 incurred in connection with the prosecution of this motion, and granted plaintiff’s cross-motion to dismiss defendant’s motion, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although defendant had standing to seek enforcement of the provision in the parties’ Separation Agreement and divorce judgment obligating plaintiff to pay the children’s college expenses, the IAS Court correctly held that plaintiff had not violated the Agreement and the New York Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (EPTL 7-4.1 et seq.) by directing the children to use their custodial accounts, which were funded by plaintiff, to pay their college expenses. The court also did not improperly exercise its discretion in denying defendant an award of counsel fees. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 450, 621 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turecki-v-turecki-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack