| Arciniega v Arciniega |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01486 [48 AD3d 607] |
| February 19, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Norma Arciniega, Respondent, v Mario Arciniega,Appellant. |
—[*1] Philip J. Castrovinci, P.C., Smithtown, N.Y. (Ruth Sovronsky of counsel), forrespondent.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated March 25,2003, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(McNulty, J.), dated June 26, 2006, as denied those branches of his motion which were for theappointment of a Law Guardian, reimbursement of excess child support payments, sanctions, anattorney's fee, and a prospective termination of his child support obligations when each of theparties' children reach 18 years of age.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretionin denying his request for the appointment of a Law Guardian or other forensic expert(see Family Court Act § 249; Frizzell v Frizzell, 177 AD2d 825, 826[1991]). His request for an attorney's fee was also properly denied because there was no evidencethat the plaintiff's conduct in opposing his various applications for downward modification ofchild support and for reargument were frivolous or undertaken primarily to delay or prolong theresolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure him (see 22 NYCRR130-1.1; Rennie-Otote v Otote, 15AD3d 380, 381 [2005]; Hamilton vCordero, 10 AD3d 702, 703 [2004]). Additionally, his request for a prospectivetermination of his child support obligation when each of the parties' children reach age 18 wasproperly denied, as a parent's obligation to support his or her minor children continues until age21 (see Family Ct Act § 413; Matter of Roe v Doe, 29 NY2d 188, 192-193[1971]) and the judgment of divorce required the payment of support to age 21 (seeSchiffman v Schiffman, 79 AD2d 971 [1981]).[*2]
The defendant's contention that he made excess childsupport payments because his consent to the stipulation of settlement was not valid andenforceable is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.