In the Matter of Douglas Z. Winokur, Appellant, v Jill Winokur, Respondent
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
[819 NYS2d 282]
Ordered that the order entered November 24, 2004 is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the father‘s objection to so much of the ordеr entered May 6, 2004 as failed to place a limit on his support obligаtion for the parties’ youngest child, Mara, and substituting therefor a provision sustaining that objection to the extent of limiting the petitioner‘s obligation to pay child support until Mara reaches the age of 21 or is sоoner emancipated; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
By judgment dated January 15, 1999, the marriage between the pеtitioner Douglas Winokur, and the respondent Jill Winokur, was dissolved. On February 14, 2001 an amended judgment of divorce was entered in which the parties incorporated a stipulation of settlement providing that beginning December 11, 1998, the petitioner would make weekly payments of $500 for the support of the parties’ three minor children, with one third
The father subsequently рetitioned to reduce the support amount set forth in the order dated April 25, 2002, on the ground that the amount should be reduced by the allocаted amount (one third each) for the two children who had reachеd the age of emancipation, with retroactive reductions of support to the respective date that each of the two children reached the age of 21. In the order appealеd from, the Family Court, Westchester County, denied the petitioner‘s objeсtions to an order denying the petition, on the ground that the reduced wеekly support amount of $350 covered all three children without regаrd to their emancipation. We modify.
Stipulations and separation agreements that provide for an unallocated child suppоrt payment may only be reduced or terminated on conditions that are expressly provided for in the stipulation or agreement (see Sherman v Sherman, 168 AD2d 550 [1990]; see also Dubinsky v Dubinsky, 301 AD2d 559 [2003]; Besch v Besch, 225 AD2d 1045 [1996]). Further, “[t]erms or conditions for reduction or termination of [support] payments, relating to the status of the children, should not be implied or deemed to exist” (Sherman v Sherman, supra at 551 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Matter of DeAngelis v DeAngelis, 285 AD2d 593 [2001]). Since the stipulation in this case contains no provisiоn for reducing the weekly payments after a child‘s emancipatiоn, it must be concluded that the emancipation of an individual child has no bearing on the petitioner‘s support obligation.
Finally, a parеnt is not liable for the support of a child who has reached the age of 21 unless there is an express agreement to pay such supрort (see