## Facts

- Former spouses, both attorneys appearing pro se, divorced in 2008 and have two sons; the mother is the custodial parent.
- Post-judgment litigation was recurrent; this application was the parties’ sixteenth post-judgment motion.
- The divorce judgment did not address allocation of the children’s future college expenses.
- The elder son has a learning disability and anxiety-related issues affecting educational needs.
- The elder son was accepted to Syracuse University (private; about $53,000 per year) and SUNY Binghamton (public; about $18,000 per year) and chose Syracuse, citing program fit and a supportive academic environment.
- The mother sought an order requiring the father to pay one-half of the elder son’s Syracuse expenses.
- The father argued his obligation should be limited to SUNY-level costs under the judicially recognized “SUNY cap.”
- The parties had similar annual incomes (each just over $100,000), but the mother had substantially greater assets (about $1.2 million) than the father (about $600,000).

## Issues

1. Whether the father’s obligation to contribute to the elder child’s private college expenses should be limited to SUNY-level costs under a “SUNY cap” where the divorce judgment was silent and no agreement imposed such a limitation.
2. Whether the father had the financial ability to contribute to Syracuse costs above SUNY levels.
3. Whether the court should determine responsibility for the younger child’s future college expenses at this time.

## Decision

- Granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
- Declined to apply a SUNY cap as an automatic ceiling and ordered the father to pay 40% of the elder child’s actual Syracuse University expenses.
- Found the father had the financial ability to contribute to the private-college costs in light of his income and assets.
- Denied any determination concerning the younger child’s future college expenses as premature.

## Legal Principles

- A SUNY-based limitation on a parent’s college-expense obligation is a judicially developed, discretionary concept, not a statutory rule automatically applicable in every case.
- Absent an agreement in the judgment or a binding stipulation fixing a SUNY cap, the court may allocate private-college costs based on a fact-specific assessment.
- In allocating college expenses, courts consider the child’s best interests and educational needs, including whether a particular institution is suited to the child, not merely the lowest cost option when parents have the ability to pay more.
- Equitable allocation may be set as a percentage reflecting the parents’ relative financial circumstances, including income and assets, rather than defaulting to either a 50/50 split or a SUNY ceiling.
- Requests for prospective rulings on a younger child’s future college expenses may be denied as unripe when admissions, costs, and relevant financial circumstances are not yet known.

## Conclusion

The court held that a SUNY cap did not limit the father’s obligation where there was no contractual or judgment-based cap and where the child’s educational needs and the parents’ resources supported contribution to a private college; it ordered the father to pay 40% of the elder child’s Syracuse expenses and declined to adjudicate the younger child’s future college costs as premature.


Pamela T. v. Marc B., 33 Misc. 3d 1001 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2011)