An example of a family breakdown after divorce. Here, one parent suffered financial reversals as well as a breakdown in the relationship with the child..
JL v. RL, 2026 NY Slip Op 50813 – NY Nassau Co, Supreme Court 2026:
“Jeffrey A. Goodstein, J.
Preliminary Statement
Defendant Ex-Husband (“Defendant”) brings an Order to Show Cause
seeking an Order directing the immediate sale of the parties’ former
marital residence, 126 Central Park Road, Plainview, New York. He also
seeks an Order declaring that the parties daughter T.L. is emancipated,
and terminating his child support. The Defendant also seeks a reduction
in his support obligations due to an “unforseen” reduction in his
income. Defendant also seeks an Order consolidating this post divorce
action with a modification petition filed in Family Court. In that
petition he seeks a downward modification of his child support
obligations. Plaintiff Ex-Wife (“Plaintiff”)does not oppose the
consolidation, but opposes the other requested relief.
In a cross motion the Plaintiff seeks an award of counsel fees in the
amount of $4,178.00 for the fees she incurred in the Family Court
proceeding brought to enforce the Defendant’s child support and
maintenance obligations. She also seeks an Order pursuant to 22 NYCRR
130-1.1 awarding her counsel fees in the amount of $5,750.00 for the
fees incurred in this proceeding.
Background
The parties were married on September 7, 2002. They had one child,
T.L., born XX/XX/XXXX. Plaintiff filed for divorce on May 3, 2021. On
February 10, 2023, the parties signed a Stipulation of Settlement. The
Judgement of Divorce was signed September 12, 2023 and entered September
18, 2023. It incorporates, but does not merge, the Stipulation of
Settlement. At the time of the settlement the defendant was earning
$188,000.00.
Prior to the entry of the Judgment of Divorce the Defendant filed an
emergency application seeking immediate execution of the Judgment. The
basis for his request for relief was his assertion that he lost his job
on May 16, 2023 and required a divorce decree to access his 401(k)
funds.
On February 14, 2025 the Defendant filed an Order to Show Cause in
this Court seeking to reduce his maintenance obligation based on a loss
of employment. This Court denied the application, without prejudice to
renew, due to the Defendant’s omission of a Net Worth Statement.
In May, 2025 the Defendant filed a petition in Family Court seeking a
downward modification of his child support obligation based on a change
in circumstances, his loss of employment. Plaintiff filed a motion to
dismiss the petition as Defendant conceded he lost his employment prior
to the entry of the Judgment of Divorce.
Plaintiff filed a petition in Family Court in June 2025, seeking the
enforcement of the Defendant’s child support and maintenance
obligations. She alleged that Defendant was in arrears in the amount of
$3,680.00 in child support and $3,332.00 in maintenance.
In his Order to Show Cause filed in this Court Defendant seeks to
constructively emancipate the daughter, ending his support obligations.
He also asks this Court to order a sale of the former marital residence
and to consolidate the Family Court proceedings with this proceeding. By
“So-Ordered” Stipulation, the Family Court proceedings were transferred
to the Supreme Court and consolidated with this post-judgment
proceeding.
Motions
The Defendant seeks to constructively emancipate the parties daughter
claiming she has finished school and is employed full-time. He claims
that she did not go to college, but instead completed an Aesthetician
program and is employed by a salon. Defendant claims that the
emancipation should end his child support obligations end and her
graduation and employment is an event which triggers the parties’
agreement to list and sell the former marital residence.
Defendant does not provide any documentation to support his claim of
emancipation. He does not provide the name of an employer, or proof of
income. He apparently relies on the fact of her reported graduation as
sufficient proof of employment and income.
Plaintiff opposes this application alleging that T.L.’s employment is
not a sufficient basis to emancipate her pursuant to the terms of our
Stipulation. She argues that pursuant to the Stipulation, to become
emancipated prior to twenty-one, T.L. must be both working full-time and
be self-supporting.
According to plaintiff T.L. does not work full time and plaintiff
supports her. Plaintiff argues that she pays all of her housing expenses
such as the mortgage, utilities, inclusive of electric. gas, water and
cable. She alleges that she also pays all of T.L.’s additional basic
expenses such as food, toiletries, and cell phone.
With respect to the Defendant’s request to sell the house, Plaintiff
argues that this is not in accordance with their Stipulation. The
Stipulation states that she has exclusive use and occupancy until the
earliest of the happening of one of the earlier termination events: (1)
The Child’s graduation from undergraduate school but, in no event,
beyond June 1, 2027.
Defendant argues that the child’s graduation from aesthetician school
and decision not to complete undergraduate school should result in the
house being placed on the market. He argues that this a triggering event
for the sale.
Plaintiff argues that the terms of the Stipulation distinctly address
the circumstances needed for sale. It states that if the daughter did
not graduate from undergraduate school in four years then the house
would be put on the market on June 1, 2027. This language was
specifically put into the Stipulation.
Plaintiff seeks an Order directing the defendant’s maintenance and
child support obligations be paid through the Support Collection Unit
due to his continued failure to make the required payments, In addition,
she seeks an award of attorneys fees incurred in this action as well as
the Family Court proceedings consolidated with this motion.
The Defendant does not deny that he has failed to meet these
obligations. He claims that he is filing a plenary action to set the
Stipulation aside.
As to the Family Court petitions, Defendant filed a petition seeking
downward modification of his child support obligations due to a claim of
reduced income. Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss that petition.
There is no opposition filed to her motion to dismiss. There being no
opposition and good cause having been demonstrated, the plaintiff’s
motion to dismiss the Father’s petition for downward modification of his
child support obligation is Granted.
Discussion
The parties Stipulation of Settlement defines events that trigger the
emancipation of their daughter as affecting child support, as well as
events that trigger the sale of the former marital residence.
With respect to the sale of the house, Article XII of the parties
Stipulation states that the Plaintiff shall have exclusive use and
occupancy of said residence until the child’s graduation from
undergraduate school, but in no event beyond June 1, 2027. The
Stipulation is silent as to what occurs if T.L. does not attend an
undergraduate school, nor does the Stipulation define “undergraduate
school.”
While the defendant argues that the child’s completion of
aesthetician school is the equivalent of a college graduation, he offers
no law to support that assertion. He states no degree obtained by his
daughter, nor does he name the program or school she attended.
The argument that the aesthetician program is an “undergraduate
school” or college as is commonly understood is not supported by the
proof presented. The words and phrases used in an agreement must be
given their plain meaning so as to define the rights of the parties (Scalabrini v. Scalabrini, 242 AD2d 725 [2nd Dept 1997]).
Case law which interprets the meaning of the word “college” is
limited. The Court of Appeals has stated that where a decedent had
agreed to pay support of his son “so long as the boy shall remain in
college,” the decedent had not “unequivocally” assumed an obligation to
support his son during his post-graduate education (Matter of Kelly, 285 NY 139 [1941]).
The Court of Appeals evaluated the term “college,” noting that it is
not a word of art which, by common understanding, has acquired a
definite, unchanging significance in the field of education. Its meaning
varies with its context. Though at times it is used to denote any
institution of higher learning, including institutions for professional
or post-graduate study, it is frequently used to denote an
“undergraduate” school for instruction in liberal arts having a course
of study commonly requiring four years for completion and leading to a
bachelor’s degree (Matter of Kelly, 285 NY 139 [1941]).
Courts have relied on the language in Kelly in determining whether support obligations are triggered by a child’s attendance at a particular type of institution (Hacker v. Hacker, 137 Misc 2d 819 [Sup. Ct. New York County 1987]; Patamoussis v. Leonardos, 2011 NY Slip Op 52097[U] [Sur Ct, Kings County 2011]).
In the absence of a specific definition of the term undergraduate
school in the separation agreement, the court is bound to apply the
plain and ordinary meaning. As set forth in Kelly, supra., this Court finds that it denotes attendance at an undergraduate program resulting in a bachelors degree.(Hacker v. Hacker, 137 Misc 2d 819 [Sup. Ct. New York County 1987]); (Patamoussis v. Leonardos, 2011 NY Slip Op 52097[U], [Sur Ct, Kings County 2011]; Robinson v. Gerny, 2007 NY Misc. LEXIS 4787 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County June 19, 2007]).
As to defendant’s request to list and sell the former marital
residence, the defendant offers no proof of an undergraduate school
graduation or degree obtained by his daughter which would trigger the
sale of the former marital residence.
With respect to defendant’s child support obligations, Article IX of
the parties Stipulation states the father is obligated to pay monthly
child support until her emancipation as the parties defined.
The stipulation sets forth: “Emancipation” of each child as used in
this Stipulation shall be deemed to have occurred upon the earliest
happening of any of the following events: 1) The child attaining the age
of 21 years unless the child is pursuing a reasonably continuous course
of college education leading to an undergraduate degree at an
accredited college or university or other alternative post-high school
education, in which event emancipation shall not take place until the
child obtains an undergraduate degree or completes said alternative
post-high school education, but in no event later than the child’s 22nd
birthday; 2) Death of the child or the parent; 3) Entry into the Armed
Forces of the United States, to continue only so long as the child is a
member of the Armed Forces before attaining the age of majority, so that
in the event of discharge before attaining majority, the child shall be
deemed not to have been fully emancipated; 4) Marriage of the child,
even though such marriage may be void or voidable; 5) Permanent
residence away from the residence of the Mother. A residence at boarding
school, college, summer camp or summer vacation is not to be deemed a
residence away from the residence of the parties sufficient to
constitute emancipation; or 6) The child engaging in full-time
employment so that the child is self-supporting upon and after attaining
the age of 18, except that engaging in part-time or sporadic employment
by the child shall not constitute emancipation and engaging in
full-time employment during vacation and/or during summer periods by the
child shall not be deemed emancipation.
In his application the Father has asserted that the child is
emancipated pursuant to paragraph 6, alleging she is employed full time
and is self supporting.
Emancipation can occur where a child is gainfully employed child and
is fully self-supporting and economically independent. The parties may
provide for emancipation contingencies in a written agreement or
stipulation (Thomas B. v. Lydia D., 69 AD3d 24
[1st Dept 2009]). The issue of emancipation is significant because a
finding of emancipation terminates the parental obligation of support (Bailey v. Bailey, 15 AD3d 577
[2nd Dept 2005]). A review of the cases that have addressed this issue
shows each one using the child’s “economic independence” as the test (Alice C. v. Bernard G.C., 193 AD2d 97
[2nd Dept. 1993]. The Court can find emancipation where a child is
economically independent and working full time and uses his or her
earnings to meet all personal expenses, including car insurance payments
and telephone charges, voluntarily contributed modest sums toward room
and board (Thomas B. v. Lydia D., 69 AD3d 24 [1st Dept 2009]).
There is no proof of that level of independence for T.L. set forth by
the Defendant in this case. The Court cannot, on the proof presented,
find that there has been an emancipation event triggering a reduction or
suspension of the his child support obligation.
As to the Plaintiff’s request for attorneys fees. Plaintiff argues
that she is entitled to attorneys fees incurred in having to respond to
Defendant’s petition in Family Court, now before the undersigned by
stipulation, as well as his motion filed in Supreme Court. Defendant
does not oppose the request on the merits, but only asks the court to
defer it due to his filing a plenary action. There is no motion for a
stay.
Conclusion
Based on the proof and arguments presented, the court finds that the
father has failed to demonstrate that the parties child, T.L., is
emancipated or that she graduated from an undergraduate school.
Based on the foregoing, those portions of the father’s motion seeking
to direct the sale of the parties former marital residence is Denied;
Furthermore, the motion to declare the parties’ daughter emancipated is Denied; and
The motion to terminate the defendant’s child support obligations is Denied.
Upon a showing of good cause and there being no opposition from Ex-Husband, plaintiff’s motion seeking counsel fees is Granted;
It is hereby
ORDERED, that Ex-Husband is directed to pay the sum of sum of
$4178.00 for attorneys fees incurred in the proceeding initiated in
Family Court and $5,750.00 for the fees incurred in the motion initiated
Supreme Court. He is directed to pay these sums to the Ex-Wife as and
for counsel fees within sixty (60) days of service of this Decision and
Order with Notice of Entry; and it is further
ORDERED, that if payment of legal fees is not made as directed
herein, the Clerk of the County of Nassau, upon payment of all
appropriate fees shall enter judgment in favor of Ex-Wife as against
Ex-Husband upon presentation of this Order together with an Affirmation
of Non-Compliance.
All other relief requested not specially addressed herein, is hereby DENIED.”