From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Friedman v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 27, 1995
216 A.D.2d 204 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 27, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.).


There was no evidence as to the academic abilities of the parties' 13- and 11-year-old daughters, their interests, their likely choices and preferences as to a college education, the likely cost of a college education for them, and the like. Without such evidence, a directive that plaintiff pay for college is premature ( Gilkes v. Gilkes, 150 A.D.2d 200, 201; Matter of Whittaker v. Feldman, 113 A.D.2d 809, 811-812). As in Whittaker, defendant should have the opportunity to seek payments for college on a later motion for upward modification when the details identified in Gilkes and Whittaker, are available.

Otherwise, the trial court properly considered all pertinent factors, and made appropriate provisions for maintenance appropriately limited to the date on which the younger child reaches 21 ( see, Sementilli v. Sementilli, 102 A.D.2d 78, 91), for private religious grade school and high school, since religion has been an integral part of the family lifestyle ( see, Keehn v Keehn, 137 A.D.2d 493, 497-498), and for life insurance serving as "discretionary security-type financial protection" ( Hartog v Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 50). Plaintiff's own self-serving view of the evidence gives this Court no reason to disturb the IAS Court's exercise of discretion ( see, Kamen v. Kamen, 163 A.D.2d 58), or its fact determinations ( see, Pologe v. Goler, 194 A.D.2d 445, 446).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.


Summaries of

Friedman v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 27, 1995
216 A.D.2d 204 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Friedman v. Friedman

Case Details

Full title:BARRY L. FRIEDMAN, Appellant, v. MARGERY FRIEDMAN, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 27, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 204 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
629 N.Y.S.2d 221

Citing Cases

Weir v. Weir

Moreover, the motion court's approval of the parties' deviation from the CSSA guidelines as to basic child…

Tan v. Tan

At the time of trial, the child was 11 years old and was not attending college. There was no evidence as to…