From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Maiolica v. Maiolica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 20, 2006
30 A.D.3d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-09367.

June 20, 2006.

In a postdivorce proceeding for child support under Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eisman, J.), dated August 18, 2005, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Watson, S.M.) dated June 30, 2005, which, after a hearing, found that he was obligated to pay a portion of the son's summer camp expenses.

Mastroianni Mastroianni, Westbury, N.Y. (Tomasina Mastroianni of counsel), for appellant.

Pacifico Marmann, Mineola, N.Y. (Diane Pacifico Marmann of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly found that summer camp expenses for the parties' son constitute child care expenses and directed the petitioner father to pay a portion of these expenses in accordance with his pro rata share of the parties' income ( see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [4]; Sieratzki v. Sieratzki, 8 AD3d 552; Cohen-Davidson v. Davidson, 255 AD2d 414, 415).


Summaries of

In the Matter of Maiolica v. Maiolica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 20, 2006
30 A.D.3d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

In the Matter of Maiolica v. Maiolica

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CATHERINE MAIOLICA, Respondent, v. ALBERT J. MAIOLICA…

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

Date published: Jun 20, 2006

Citations

30 A.D.3d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5021
816 N.Y.S.2d 386

Citing Cases

Spinner v. Spinner

Accordingly, the court should have limited the combined parental income in excess of the statutory cap to…

Tuchman v. Tuchman

In addition to the defendants's basic child support obligation, the Supreme Court directed the defendant to…