You are here: / / IN A COMPLEX MARITAL-PROPERTY, MAINTENANCE AND CHILD-SUPPORT ANALYSIS TOO...

IN A COMPLEX MARITAL-PROPERTY, MAINTENANCE AND CHILD-SUPPORT ANALYSIS TOO DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE TO SUMMARIZE HERE, THE COURT NOTED THAT, ABSENT A VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT, A PARENT MAY NOT BE DIRECTED TO SUPPORT A CHILD AFTER THE AGE OF 21 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an extensive marital-property, maintenance and child-support decision too detailed and comprehensive to fairly summarize here, noted that a parent is not obligated to support a child over the age of 21:

The defendant … contends that the Supreme Court improperly directed him to pay basic child-support and add-on expenses for the child after she reaches the age of 21. A parent has no legal obligation to provide for or contribute to the support of a child over the age of 21 … . “In the absence of a voluntary agreement, a parent may not be directed to pay support or to contribute to the college education of a child who has attained the age of 21 years, and has no obligation to continue the support of a child after the child reaches the age of 21 years” … . Here, there was no voluntary agreement, and accordingly, the court should not have directed the defendant to pay basic child support and add-on expenses for the child after she reaches the age of 21. Sinnott v Sinnott, 2021 NY Slip Op 03073, Second Dept 5-12-21

 

You might also like
COOPERATIVE BOARD’S PARKING RESTRICTION WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE.
THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF HAD POSSESSION OF THE NOTE PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
GRANDMOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY CASE; MATTER SENT BACK TO FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER GRANDMOTHER WAS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSIGNED COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).
PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE NOT MET; ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A CORPORATION DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO SHAREHOLDERS OR EMPLOYEES (SECOND DEPT).
Similar Pending Lawsuit Properly Dismissed—Two Lawsuits Sought Declaratory Judgment Re: Duty to Defend and Indemnify
DEFENDANT PIZZA-DELIVERY DRIVER WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE ALLEGELDY RESISTED ARREST AND INJURED PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER; THE OFFICER’S SUIT AGAINST THE DRIVER’S EMPLOYER, UNDER VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT HIRING THEORIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTIMIDATING WITNESSES SUCH THAT OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS BY THOSE WITNESSES WERE ADMISSIBLE; THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO EXERCISE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO JURORS ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
​ ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE COMMITED DEFENDANT TO SIX MONTHS IN A SECURE FACILITY PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20(6) WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (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

THE POLICE ACTED ILLEGALLY IN DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE;... THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF SELLER’S BUSINESS TO BUYER DID NOT...