Matter of Toni Raeder v Lance S. Silverman

Annotate this Case
Matter of Raeder v Silverman 2004 NY Slip Op 06045 [9 AD3d 410] July 12, 2004 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, September 22, 2004

In the Matter of Toni Raeder, Respondent,
v
Lance S. Silverman, Appellant.

—[*1]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), entered September 16, 2003, as granted the mother's petition and awarded her $7,457.33 for tuition and expenses incurred for the college education of the parties' child, and as denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Livrieri, H.E.), dated May 12, 2003, as dismissed his cross petition, inter alia, for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order entered September 16, 2003, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties' judgment of divorce dated January 19, 1988, expressly provided that the Supreme Court "shall retain jurisdiction of the matter (concurrent with the Family Court) for the purpose of specifically enforcing" the parties' separation agreement, which survived and did not merge into the judgment of divorce. Thus, the Family Court properly concluded that the college education provision set forth therein was enforceable and subject to a violation petition (see Matter of Walsh v Karamitis, 291 AD2d 749 [2002]). Further, the father failed to demonstrate that due to a substantial, unanticipated, and unreasonable change in circumstances, he should be relieved of his obligation to pay tuition and expenses incurred for the college education of the parties' child, or that [*2]he was entitled to a downward modification of his child support obligation (see Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210, 213 [1977]; Beard v Beard, 300 AD2d 268 [2002]). H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.