| Matter of Iadanza v Boeger |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00384 [58 AD3d 733] |
| January 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Paul Iadanza, Respondent, v Bonnie J.Boeger, Appellant. |
—[*1] Garrett R. Lacara, Bohemia, N.Y., for respondent.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Luft, J.), dated September 11, 2007, whichdenied her objections to stated portions of an order of the same court (Grier, S.M.), dated March30, 2007, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed her to pay child support in the sum of$753.20 per month and 20% of the college expenses of the parties' son Jesse.
Ordered that the order dated September 11, 2007 is modified, on the law, by deleting theprovision thereof denying the mother's objections and substituting therefor a provision sustainingthe objections to the extent of directing that the mother's child support obligation be reduced byany amounts she contributed, or may contribute in the future, toward room and board duringthose periods when the parties' son Jesse lived, or may live in the future, away from home whileattending college, and otherwise denying the objections; as so modified, the order datedSeptember 11, 2007 is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to theFamily Court, Suffolk County, for a new determination of the amounts of the mother's childsupport arrears, if any, in accordance herewith.
The Family Court properly directed the mother to pay 20% of the college expenses of theparties' son Jesse. However, it was error to do so without directing that the mother's child supportobligation be [*2]reduced by any amounts she contributed, ormay contribute in the future, toward room and board during those periods when Jesse lived, ormay live in the future, away from home while attending college (see Matter of Levy v Levy, 52 AD3d717 [2008]; Navin v Navin, 22AD3d 474 [2005]; Wortman vWortman, 11 AD3d 604 [2004]; Rohrs v Rohrs, 297 AD2d 317, 318 [2002]).
The mother's remaining contentions are either without merit or improperly raised for the firsttime on appeal. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.