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
THE PLEA ALLOCUTION RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF DURESS AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE JUDGE MADE NO INQUIRY INTO THE VALIDITY OF PLEA; CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT MISCHARACTERIZED THE SCOPE OF THE WAIVER OF APPEAL BY NOT CLARIFYING THAT CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES REMAIN APPEALABLE DESPITE THE WAIVER; WAIVER INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
CONVERSION THEORY DOES NOT APPLY TO REAL ESTATE OR INTANGIBLE PROPERTY.
THE BANK FAILED TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED ON IN ITS AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; SUPREME COURT’S DETERMINATION THE BANK HAD COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE PRECLUDING RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE PURSUANT TO DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
“Undue Influence” and “Fraud” Criteria Explained Re: Objections to Probate of a Will
A CONTRACT BETWEEN A LANDOWNER AND A TOWN THAT PURPORTS TO BIND TOWN BOARDS ELECTED IN THE FUTURE WITH RESPECT TO A PETITION FOR REZONING VIOLATES THE TERM LIMITS RULE; A CONTRACT WHICH PURPORTS TO LIMIT A TOWN’S REZONING REVIEW PROCESS VIOLATES THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CONTRACT ZONING (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED UPON INADMISSBILE HEARSAY AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2025 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