AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of PAUL IADANZA, Respondent, v. BONNIE J. BOEGER, Appellant.

Ordered that the order dated September 11, 2007 is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the mother's objections and substituting therefor a provision sustaining the objections to the extent of directing that the mother's child support obligation be reduced by any amounts she contributed, or may contribute in the future, toward room and board during those periods when the parties' son Jesse lived, or may live in the future, away from home while attending college, and otherwise denying the objections; as so modified, the order dated September 11, 2007 is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a new determination of the amounts of the mother's child support arrears, if any, in accordance herewith.

The Family Court properly directed the mother to pay 20% of the college expenses of the parties' son Jesse. However, it was error to do so without directing that the mother's child support obligation be reduced by any amounts she contributed, or may contribute in the future, toward room and board during those periods when Jesse lived, or may live in the future, away from home while attending college ( see Matter of Levy v Levy, 52 AD3d 717; Navin v Navin, 22 AD3d 474; Wortman v Wortman, 11 AD3d 604; Rohrs v Rohrs, 297 AD2d 317, 318).

The mother's remaining contentions are either without merit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IADANZA v. BOEGER
(Jan 20, 2009)