Financial Support for Children's College Expenses and the SUNY Cap

Today's blog will discuss the recent case of Pamela v. Marc from the Supreme Court of New York County. This case discussed whether the court can impose a father to pay more for his child's college education when the child opts to attend a private school instead of a state-funded public school in the SUNY system. The father was trying to impose the "SUNY cap." The SUNY cap imposes a cap on each parent's pro rata contribution when the child chooses to attend a non-SUNY system school. In Pamela v. Marc, the child had struggled with a learning disability and chose to attend Syracuse University, a non-state funded private school. The child had also been accepted at SUNY Binghamton and SUNY Buffalo. The mother wanted the father to pay one-half of all college related tuition, fees, housing, and meal costs. The father was willing to contribute, but wanted the courts to apply the SUNY cap to limit his responsibility to a percentage of the costs of a state university education. The court weighed the following factors in reaching its decision: educational background of the parents and their financial ability to provide the necessary funds, the child's academic ability and endeavors, and the type of college that would be most suitable for the child. Both parents were employed attorneys who had both attended private colleges and each earned over $100,000. The father had the ability to pay, evidenced by his willingness to contribute some amount. As for the child's academic ability and endeavors and the type of college that would be most suitable for the child, the child chose Syracuse because it was the only college that accepted him with strong programs in his desired fields of study. Based on these factors, the court decided not to impose the SUNY cap because the father had the financial ability to contribute. The court decided the father would be responsible for 40% and the mother would be responsible for 60%. This proportion was based on the difference between the parents' net income. Therefore, the court explicitly relied on the respective finances of the parties, the same basis used with all other child support obligations, instead of imposing the SUNY cap.