You are here: / / Distinction Between New York College Funds, Which Are Protected Against...
, ,

Distinction Between New York College Funds, Which Are Protected Against Creditors, and College Funds Established in Other States, Which Are Not Protected, Does Not Violate the Equal Protection Clause

The Second Department determined that a college fund established under the laws of New Hampshire, unlike a college fund established under the laws of New York, was not entitled to the protection from creditors afforded by CPLR 5205.  The distinction between New York funds and funds established in other states was deemed to be constitutional:

The parties do not dispute that the protection from creditors afforded by CPLR 5205(j)(2) to college tuition savings program accounts defined in 26 USC § 529 (hereinafter 529 savings plans) does not apply where, as here, the accounts are not qualified college savings program accounts established pursuant to the New York State College Choice Tuition Saving Program, as set forth in Education Law article 14-A. The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the distinction made in CPLR 5205(j) between 529 savings plans established under the laws of New York, and those established in other states, or under the laws of other states, does not violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Since the classification “is not based on an inherently suspect characteristic and does not impermissibly interfere with the exercise of a fundamental right, it need only rationally further a legitimate state interest to be upheld as constitutional” … . Applying this standard of rational basis review, the court properly determined that CPLR 5205(j) was not unconstitutional, as the disparate treatment is not ” so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes'” as to be irrational … . County Bank v Broderick, 2014 NY Slip Op 05621, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SEND THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Weight of the Evidence Review Required Reversal
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRIPPING HAZARD WAS INHERENT IN PLAINTIFF’S JOB; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSD (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE A FACT-FINDING OF NEGLECT WITHOUT ADMISSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DECRETAL PARAGRAPH OF THE APPELLATE DECISION REMITTING THE MATTER FOR RETRIAL DID NOT IMPOSE THE CONDITIONS ON RETRIAL WHICH WERE IMPOSED BY SUPREME COURT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MAILING PROCEDURES AND DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THE ATTACHED BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS PROPERLY MAILED, A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT). ​
POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY TOWN OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF A CLAIM STEMMING FROM A COLLISION WITH A TOWN SNOW PLOW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Dismissal of Labor Law 240, 241 and 200 Actions

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

Written Waiver of Conflict by Defendants Precluded Disqualification of Plaintiff’s... Partial Performance of an Oral Modification Will Allow Enforcement of the Oral...