Opinion
June 13, 1988
Appeal from the Family Court, Nassau County (Moody, H.E.).
Ordered that the order is modified, by reducing the amount the appellant is required to pay for medical expenses and insurance from $2,638.73 to $263.52; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We concur with the determination of the Family Court that in view of the substantial change in the son's circumstances, an upward modification of the child support award was warranted in order to insure adequate support for him (see, Matter of Michaels v Michaels, 56 N.Y.2d 924; Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132, on remand 89 A.D.2d 894; Matter of Rubinstein v Bates, 128 A.D.2d 536, 537). We likewise perceive no basis to disturb the provision directing the appellant to pay child support for his daughter while she is in college. The parties' separation agreement provided that the appellant was to be relieved from paying such support only in the event he paid the full costs of his daughter's college education, which is not the situation here (cf., Canter v Canter, 91 A.D.2d 1180; Matter of Thaler v Klein, 55 A.D.2d 606, 607). Furthermore, the record supports the Hearing Examiner's determination that the appellant's claimed unemployment and poverty was contrived and that he was guilty of economic fault (see, Hickland v Hickland, 39 N.Y.2d 1, cert denied 429 U.S. 941; Griffin v Griffin, 115 A.D.2d 587). We also find that the award of counsel fees was proper inasmuch as it was supported by documentation of counsel and by the relative financial circumstances of the parties (see, Silver v Silver, 63 A.D.2d 1017).
However, we find that the award of $2,638.73 in medical expenses and insurance premiums was improper. Under the express terms of a 1978 stipulation between the parties, the appellant was obligated only to maintain hospitalization coverage for the children. He was not required to maintain major medical coverage for them or to reimburse the petitioner for medical expenses incurred. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to only the $263.52 she expended on hospitalization coverage.
We have examined the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.