Washington v. Washington

New York Court of Appeals

Washington v. Washington

925 N.E.2d 582, 14 N.Y.3d 777

DecidedMarch 25, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 925 N.E.2d 582 (Washington v. Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Washington v. Washington, 925 N.E.2d 582, 14 N.Y.3d 777 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated.

In this nonjury trial, the parties charted their own course, effectively removing from the case the question whether the trust funds were exhausted and thereby eliminating plaintiff mother’s burden on this issue. The Appellate Division erred in holding that no evidence was adduced as to the means and abilities of the parties to contribute to their children’s college education expenses. Such evidence was adduced, and we conclude as a matter of law that defendant father had sufficient [779]*779means to contribute to his sons’ college education expenses within the meaning of the parties’ separation agreement. Defendant father’s remaining arguments in support of affirmance are without merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated.

In this nonjury trial, the parties charted their own course, effectively removing from the case the question whether the trust funds were exhausted and thereby eliminating plaintiff mother’s burden on this issue. The Appellate Division erred in holding that no evidence was adduced as to the means and abilities of the parties to contribute to their children’s college education expenses. Such evidence was adduced, and we conclude as a matter of law that defendant father had sufficient [779]*779means to contribute to his sons’ college education expenses within the meaning of the parties’ separation agreement. Defendant father’s remaining arguments in support of affirmance are without merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

925 N.E.2d 582, 14 N.Y.3d 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-washington-ny-2010.