You are here: / / CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED...
,

CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE CAP ON CHILD SUPPORT MAY DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF THEIR RIGHT TO SUPPORT.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the child support provisions of a stipulation of settlement in this divorce action should not be enforced because the children’s right to child support was jeopardized. Because the stipulation put a cap on father’s child support obligations, it was possible payment of room and board (college) for one sibling could exceed the cap leaving the other siblings without support:

​

“[T]he parties cannot contract away the duty of child support. Despite the fact that a separation agreement is entitled to the solemnity and obligation of a contract, when children’s rights are involved the contract yields to the welfare of the children. The duty of a parent to support his or her child shall not be eliminated or diminished by the terms of a separation agreement, nor can it be abrogated by contract” … .

The agreement here violates this rule. The credit sought by the father takes away that portion of child support intended for the welfare of the other two children. Taken to its logical end, the agreement threatens to completely deprive the other children of any support whatsoever, if monthly room and board costs for one child were to exceed $2,500. Keller-Goldman v Goldman, 2017 NY Slip Op 02723, 1st Dept 4-6-17

 

FAMILY LAW (CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE CAP ON CHILD SUPPORT MAY DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF THEIR RIGHT TO SUPPORT)/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, DIVORCE, CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE CAP ON CHILD SUPPORT MAY DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF THEIR RIGHT TO SUPPORT)/CHILD SUPPORT (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE CAP ON CHILD SUPPORT MAY DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF THEIR RIGHT TO SUPPORT)/STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE CAP ON CHILD SUPPORT MAY DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF THEIR RIGHT TO SUPPORT)/DIVORCE  (CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE CAP ON CHILD SUPPORT MAY DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF THEIR RIGHT TO SUPPORT)

You might also like
City Was Not Required to Consider the Petitioners’ Preferred Scenario for Development—City Was Required Only to Consider the “No Action” Alternative
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN UNSECURED FENCE PANELS FELL ON HIM; HIS INJURIES ARE COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, MAKESHIFT LADDER SLID OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FIRST DEPT).
ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
SEPARATE TRIALS WERE HELD ON THE TORT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTIONS STEMMING FROM DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFFS’ BUILDING CAUSED BY RENOVATION OF DEFENDANT’S NEIGHBORING BUILDING; THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN EACH ACTION WERE BASED UPON THE SAME EVIDENCE OF THE COST OF REPAIR AND ALTERNATE LIVING EXPENSES BUT THE AMOUNTS OF THE AWARDS DIFFERED; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ENTERED THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLUS INTEREST AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, AS THE APPEALABLE FINAL JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
COUNSEL’S CONDUCT WAS NOT FRIVILOUS OR DESIGNED TO DELAY; COUNSEL WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE SANCTIONED; THE JUDGE DID NOT INDICATE WHY THE AMOUNT OF THE SANCTION WAS APPROPRIATE, $100 SANCTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF FELL ATTEMPTING TO USE AN INVERTED BUCKET TO STEP UP TO AN ELEVATED PLATFORM (FIRST 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

DESPITE THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT... RESPONDENT NOT INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT IN THIS PINS PROCEEDING,...