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
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304, PARTICULARLY THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS, WAS NOT SHOWN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE SIX-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF WAS REASONABLE AND ENFORCEABLE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION, WHICH WAS COMMENCED SIX MONTHS AND ONE DAY AFTER PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED, WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Affidavits and Text Messages Do Not Constitute “Documentary Evidence” In the Context of a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1)
THE RELEASE WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH; CPLR 2101, WHICH REQUIRES DOCUMENTS IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE WHICH ARE FILED OR SERVED BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION, DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE RELEASE WAS IN ENGLISH (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A TRAIN; THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE ALLOWS A TRAIN OPERATOR TO PROCEED NORMALLY AND ASSUME A PERSON SEEN AHEAD ON THE TRACKS WILL GET OUT OF THE WAY; THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE APPLIES WHETHER THE ACCIDENT HAPPENS IN DAYLIGHT OR, AS HERE, AT NIGHT (SECOND DEPT).
FORECLOSURE COULD PROCEED DESPITE ERRONEOUS SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE.
10-Year-Old Plaintiff’s Testimony Should Have Been Considered—No Need for Hearing to Determine Testimonial Capacity
JUDGE CONDUCTED EXCESSIVE QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES, NEW TRIAL WITH A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (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 NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED COUNTY’S APPLICATION FOR... KNEE HIGH TABLE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT...