Opinion
November 18, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Buell, J.).
Judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs to plaintiff.
A review of the record reveals that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding the sum of $200 per week as child support (Domestic Relations Law §§ 240, 236 [B] [7]). Nor was it an abuse of discretion, under the facts of this case, to require defendant to contribute towards the parochial school education of the parties' children (see, e.g., Prospero v Prospero, 39 A.D.2d 634). Ordinarily, a parent "`should not be compelled, over his [or her] objection to pay for private schooling where "the community makes available to children through the public school system the education which each child is entitled to as a matter of course"'" (Matter of Ladner v Iarussi, 92 A.D.2d 895, quoting from Gartin v Gartin, 64 A.D.2d 600). Yet tuition has been awarded, when practical, where it was warranted by the educational background of the parents and history of the child (see, e.g., Kaplan v Wallshein, 57 A.D.2d 828) or special needs or circumstances of the child (see, e.g., Benson v Benson, 79 A.D.2d 694). Here, the court properly found that religious values and education were an integral part of the family life-style and value structure. Furthermore, the children, who are already in their mid-teens, have been in parochial school since kindergarten. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the children that their school and social lives not be disrupted at this juncture. The parties' finances indicate an ability to afford the costs of tuition.
We have examined both parties' contentions on the issue of the attorney and expert fee award and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.