Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
David BLUMBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Diane KRAUSZ, Defendant-Respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered December 9, 2003, awarding defendant child support arrears in the principal amount of $33,732, plus interest, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 20, 2003, unanimously dismissed, without costs.
The parties' separation agreement provides that their child should continue attending the Dwight School, and that they are to be bound by the advice of the Dwight School's principal, headmaster or guidance counselor in the event of disagreements on educational issues. The record establishes that Dwight is not just recommending the child's participation in its Quest Program for children with mild learning disabilities, but actually requiring it as a condition to her continued enrollment. Accordingly, the cost of the Quest Program constitutes “tuition” within the meaning of the parties' separation agreement and thus is plaintiff's obligation to pay (see Matter of Cleveland v. Roberts, 240 A.D.2d 303, 660 N.Y.S.2d 112). For the same reason, the need to pay for the Quest Program was an “educational emergency” within the meaning of the separation agreement justifying defendant's withdrawal of money from the child's UGMA account earmarked for her college education. Plaintiff's request, made in his opposition papers to defendant's motion for child support arrears, for a setoff of amounts allegedly owed by defendant under their equitable distribution agreement, is insufficiently documented, and was properly denied without prejudice to plaintiff's making a separate motion for such relief. We have considered and rejected plaintiff's other arguments.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 15, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)