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
Defense Counsel Should Have Been Present During Exchange Between Judge and Juror Which Resulted in Disqualification of Juror/Judge Should Have Disclosed Reason for Disqualification
Liability Criteria Re: Tenant for Slip and Fall on Abutting Public Sidewalk Explained
THE BANK WHICH COMMENCED THE 2006 FORECLOSURE HAD ALREADY ASSIGNED THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE AND DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING IN 2006; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACTOR WHICH WAXED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THE CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).
TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, TOWN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303 AND 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE BANK (SECOND DEPT).
ABSENT “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,” A JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS A COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A CONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE TO A SUBCONTRACTOR FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; THE SUBCONTRACTOR WAS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO FIX THE PROBLEM ALLEGEDLY CREATED BY THE CONTRACTOR (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 © 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