IN RE: Lucy LOVEDAY (2000)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: Lucy LOVEDAY, respondent, v. James W. LOVEDAY, appellant.

Decided: May 08, 2000

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN and GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, JJ.

Ronald R. Tomlins, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for appellant. Jode Susan Millman, P.C., Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for respondent.

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), entered February 1, 1999, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Furman, H.E.), dated November 25, 1998, which, after a hearing, granted the mother's application to terminate her child support obligation upon the daughter's emancipation.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Family Court properly terminated the mother's child support obligation upon a finding that the daughter's marriage constituted an event which resulted in the daughter's emancipation pursuant to an amendment to the parties' settlement agreement, which was incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce (see, Matter of Henry v. Boyd, 99 A.D.2d 382, 473 N.Y.S.2d 892; Matter of Rankin v. Lavine, 50 A.D.2d 1091, 376 N.Y.S.2d 355, affd. 41 N.Y.2d 911, 394 N.Y.S.2d 618, 363 N.E.2d 343).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to address the father's remaining contentions.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network