Pamela T. v. Marc B.
33 Misc. 3d 1001 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Courts determining parental contributions for a child's college education under Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (c) (7) must apply a multi-factor best interests analysis, and there is no presumptive 'SUNY cap' limiting a financially capable parent's obligation to the cost of a state university, nor is a custodial parent required to prove a private college offers a 'superior' education.
Facts:
- The Plaintiff Mother and Defendant Father divorced on December 23, 2008, with a divorce judgment and subsequent amendment that were silent regarding the payment of their children's college tuition and expenses.
- In 2007, the elder child was diagnosed with moderate emotional difficulty and learning/anxiety disorders, necessitating educational accommodations.
- The elder child graduated in 2011 from a selective public high school in Manhattan and was accepted to Syracuse University (a private institution, costing ~$53,000/year) and state universities like SUNY Binghamton (costing ~$18,000/year), among others.
- The elder child chose to attend Syracuse University, stating it offered strong programs in his desired fields (computer engineering and computer graphics) and provided beneficial Learning Communities for students with similar academic interests, aiding his learning disabilities and social anxiety.
- The Plaintiff Mother's 2010 adjusted gross income was $109,896, with assets of approximately $1,230,000, and she attended Northwestern University and New York University School of Law.
- The Defendant Father's 2010 adjusted gross income was $105,135, with assets of approximately $580,000, and he attended Columbia University and Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, also keeping a second apartment despite being remarried.
Procedural Posture:
- The Plaintiff Mother and Defendant Father divorced on December 23, 2008, with a judgment of divorce incorporating a custody agreement and a stipulation of settlement.
- The judgment was amended on February 26, 2009, incorporating a decision from August 27, 2007, that ordered the Defendant Father to pay the Plaintiff Mother $686/month in basic child support and 22% of certain additional expenses.
- In late 2009, the Plaintiff Mother filed a motion in the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking the Defendant Father's contribution for the elder child's college expenses.
- On August 30, 2010, the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the Plaintiff Mother's motion for college expenses as premature, without prejudice.
- The Plaintiff Mother filed the current motion (their sixteenth post-judgment motion) in the Supreme Court, New York County, requesting the Defendant Father contribute equally to the elder child's Syracuse University expenses, the younger child's future college expenses, and all college preparation costs.
- The Defendant Father opposed the motion, arguing for the application of a 'SUNY cap' to limit his obligation for the elder child to a percentage of state university costs, claiming the request for the younger child was premature, and asserting that 'law of the case' prevented an award for college preparation and application fees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New York matrimonial law impose a presumptive 'SUNY cap' on a non-custodial parent's obligation to contribute to a child's private college education, requiring the custodial parent to demonstrate that a private college offers a superior education to a state college, even when the parent has the financial ability to contribute more?
Opinions:
Majority - Matthew F. Cooper, J.
No, New York matrimonial law does not impose a presumptive 'SUNY cap' on a non-custodial parent's obligation for private college expenses, nor does it require a showing of a superior education at a private college when the parent has the financial means. The court found that Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (c) (7) provides courts with discretion to order parental contributions for private college, based on 'the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties and in the best interests of the child, and as justice requires.' This includes considering parents' educational background, financial ability, the child's academic ability, and the suitability of the college. The court rejected the 'SUNY cap' as a broadly applicable, judicially created concept, noting it primarily appeared in Second Department cases often tied to specific agreements requiring parental consent for college choice, which was absent here. The court explicitly refused to act as a 'judicial college evaluator' to compare the 'superiority' of private versus public institutions, stating there are no judicially manageable standards for such a determination and that college selection is a highly personal decision for the child. It highlighted the elder child's valid reasons for choosing Syracuse, which suited his academic and personal needs, and noted that both parents attended private colleges, creating a reasonable expectation for the child. Given the Defendant Father's substantial income and assets, and his payment of a very low basic child support amount, the court concluded he had the financial ability to contribute significantly. Therefore, the court found 'no basis to impose the SUNY cap... where the party seeking to invoke the cap has the financial ability to contribute towards the actual amount of his or her child’s college expenses,' and ordered the Defendant Father to contribute 40% of the elder child's Syracuse University expenses. The court denied the request for the younger child's college expenses as premature and the application for college preparation/application fees based on the 'law of the case' principle due to a prior denial without sufficient change in circumstances.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the 'SUNY cap' doctrine in New York, particularly in the First Department, by shifting the burden to the objecting parent to demonstrate why the cap is warranted, rather than requiring the custodial parent to prove the superiority of a private college. It reinforces a holistic 'best interests of the child' approach under DRL § 240 (1-b) (c) (7), which considers individual needs, parental educational background, and financial capacity, rather than strict cost-saving. The ruling makes it more challenging for financially capable parents to automatically limit college contributions to state university rates, promoting access to higher-cost private institutions if deemed suitable and affordable. This decision suggests courts should prioritize a child's individual fit for a college over a general assumption that state schools are sufficient or that cost alone is a prohibitive factor if parents have means.
