You are here: / / ABSENT PROOF OF 16-YEAR-OLD CHILD’S COLLEGE PLANS, ANY AWARD OF COLLEGE EXPENSES ...

ABSENT PROOF OF 16-YEAR-OLD CHILD’S COLLEGE PLANS, ANY AWARD OF COLLEGE EXPENSES WOULD BE PREMATURE.

The Second Department, in a decision covering many equitable distribution issues not summarized here, determined any award of college expenses for a 16-year-old child was premature. No evidence was presented concerning the child’s academic wishes or plans:

… [T]he court did not err in declining to direct the defendant to contribute his pro rata share of the parties’ unemancipated child’s future college expenses. “The court may direct a parent to contribute to a child’s college education pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(c)(7)” … . “However, when college is several years away, and no evidence is presented as to the child’s academic interests, ability, possible choice of college, or what his or her expenses might be, a directive compelling [a parent] to pay for those expenses is premature and not supported by the evidence” … . At the time of the trial, the parties’ unemancipated child was 16 years old and was entering his junior year of high school. There was no evidence presented as to his academic interests, his possible choice of college, or what the expenses of college might be. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s request that the court direct the defendant to contribute his pro rata share of the parties’ unemancipated child’s future college expenses was premature … . Repetti v Repetti, 2017 NY Slip Op 01396, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

FAMILY LAW (EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, ABSENT PROOF OF 16-YEAR-OLD CHILD’S COLLEGE PLANS, ANY AWARD OF COLLEGE EXPENSES WOULD BE PREMATURE)/EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION (COLLEGE EXPENSES, (EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, ABSENT PROOF OF 16-YEAR-OLD CHILD’S COLLEGE PLANS, ANY AWARD OF COLLEGE EXPENSES WOULD BE PREMATURE)/COLLEGE EXPENSES (FAMILY LAW, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, ABSENT PROOF OF 16-YEAR-OLD CHILD’S COLLEGE PLANS, ANY AWARD OF COLLEGE EXPENSES WOULD BE PREMATURE)

You might also like
PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE WET AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF SUED AN ILLINOIS SCHOOL ALLEGING THAT THE ONLINE COURSES OFFERED BY DEFENDANT SCHOOL DURING THE PANDEMIC CONSTITUTED A TRANSACTION IN NEW YORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LONG-ARM STATUTE; BUT PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE SHE WAS IN NEW YORK WHEN SHE TOOK THE ONLINE COURSES; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SCHOOL TOOK REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT A STUDENT, J. P., FROM ASSAULTING AN UNIDENTIFIED STUDENT AFTER THE SCHOOL LEARNED OF A RUMOR THAT J.P. INTENDED TO FIGHT SOMEONE; WHEN CONFRONTED AND WARNED J.P. DENIED THAT HE INTENDED TO ASSAULT ANYONE; TWO DAYS LATER J.P. ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF’S CHILD; THE SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE LABOR LAW LIABILITY EXEMPTION FOR OWNERS OF ONE AND TWO FAMILY HOMES DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE WORK HAS A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE, I.E., RENOVATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR SALE OR RENTAL; HERE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK WAS FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE SELLER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO EXERCISE AN OPTION IN THE RESTRICTED REMEDIES CLAUSE OF THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT BECAUSE THE BUYER NEVER DEMANDED SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).
CPLR 1021 DEFINES THE PROCEDURE FOR SUBSTITUTING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A DECEASED PARTY; HERE THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED; THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE EXECUTOR WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED, BILL OF PARTICULARS, LEAVE OF COURT NOT REQUIRED.
CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER.

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 NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED COUNTY’S APPLICATION FOR... KNEE HIGH TABLE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT...