You are here: / / Criteria for Award of Support for Education

Criteria for Award of Support for Education

The Second Department explained the criteria for the award of support for a child’s college education as follows:

“Unlike the obligation to provide support for a child’s basic needs, support for a child’s college education is not mandatory'”…. “Instead, absent a voluntary agreement, whether a parent is obligated to contribute to a child’s college education is dependent upon the exercise of the court’s discretion in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(c)(7)’ …, and an award will be made only “as justice requires”‘”…. “[A] court must give due regard to the circumstances of the case and the respective parties, as well as both the best interests of the child and the requirements of justice” ….  Silverstein v Silverstein, 2013 NY Slip Op 04323, 2nd Dept, 6-12-13

 

You might also like
Question of Fact Raised About Whether Any Delay In Insured’s Notifying the Insurer of the Accident Was Attributable to the Insured’s “Good-Faith Belief of Non-Liability”
False Arrest and False Imprisonment Causes of Action Properly Dismissed—City Demonstrated Police Had Probable Cause to Arrest Based Upon a Complaint by an Identified Citizen
FAMILY COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE TWO CHILDREN IN ITS PLACEMENT DECISION; STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE OF DEFAULT DID NOT ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Elements of Fraud, Money Had and Received, and Unjust Enrichment Explained
Unwed Birth Father’s Consent for Adoption Properly Required
THE PETITIONERS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE OPERATION OF A CONCRETE PLANT WOULD CAUSE INJURIES TO THEM DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SUFFERED BY THE PUBLIC AT LARGE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE RENOVATION AND OPERATION OF THE PLANT (SECOND DEPT).
In an Action Stemming from an Automobile Accident, Having Granted a Default Judgment, Supreme Court Should Not Have Directed Plaintiff to Accept a Late Answer and Allowed Discovery Re: Damages–A Defaulting Defendant Is Not Entitled to Discovery

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Family Court Should Have Granted Father’s Motion to Vacate a Fact-Finding... Relationships Among Subtenancy, Prime Tenancy and Landlord Explained