Catalano v. Catalano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department · Family Law

Family LawCollege expensesSupport proceedingsEvidentiary hearingcollege education expensesreimbursementsupport magistratefamily court

Facts

A prior Family Court order dated October 4, 2000, directed the respondent to contribute $3,000 per year to the cost of the parties' daughter's college education so long as she was in college. At a hearing, the respondent stipulated that the daughter graduated in May 2004. The petitioner sought reimbursement of college expenses for the 2003/04 school year, but was effectively denied the opportunity to proffer evidence that the daughter was enrolled in and attended college during that period. The Support Magistrate then denied that branch of the petition for failure to submit evidence of enrollment and attendance during the relevant time period.

Issue

Whether the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of the daughter's 2003/04 college expenses could be denied for lack of proof of enrollment and attendance when the Support Magistrate effectively precluded the petitioner from offering that proof.

Rule

When a Support Magistrate effectively precludes a party from proffering appropriate evidence relevant to a claim for reimbursement of court-ordered college expenses, denial of that claim for lack of such evidence is improper, and the matter should be remitted for a hearing allowing submission of the evidence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A Family Court order in Buffalo, New York requires Devin Ross to pay $4,000 each year toward his son Liam's college costs so long as Liam is in college. At a reimbursement hearing, Mara Ross tries to offer Liam's registrar certification for the 2024-25 academic year, but the Support Magistrate cuts her off and says no school records will be accepted; the magistrate then denies reimbursement because Mara did not prove Liam was enrolled and attending.

How should an appellate court most likely rule on the denial of reimbursement?

Explanation. Where a tribunal effectively precludes a party from proffering appropriate evidence relevant to a claim for court-ordered college expenses, it cannot then deny the claim for lack of that same evidence. The proper remedy is not automatic reimbursement but remittal for a hearing with the benefit of the excluded proof. (Derived from Catalano v. Catalano (n.d.).)