Opinion
Submitted April 27, 2000.
June 19, 2000.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated February 5, 1999, as denied his objection to so much of an order of the same court (Spegele, H.E.), dated December 30, 1998, as directed him to pay school transportation expenses for the parties' children pursuant to the stipulation of settlement in the divorce action.
Rosner Murray Tucker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joseph P. Tucker of counsel), for appellant.
Bonita Meeg, Brooklyn, N.Y., respondent pro se.
Before: THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order dated February 5, 1999, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the appellant's objection to so much of the order dated December 30, 1998, as directed him to pay school transportation expenses is sustained.
The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in their divorce action which was later incorporated by reference into a judgment of divorce. Prior to execution of the stipulation, the parties deleted a provision which would have required the father to pay 96% of their children's school transportation expense. The hearing officer erred in giving effect to this provision and finding that the father was responsible for payment of such expenses (see, Wilson v. Neppell, 253 A.D.2d 493; Joseph v. Creek Pines, 217 A.D.2d 534; Wuestenhoefer v. Friedlander/Wuestenhoefer, Inc., 213 A.D.2d 632; Aguirre v. City of New York, 214 A.D.2d 692; Matter of Zaremba v. Interface Flooring Sys., Inc., 195 A.D.2d 471; Torsiello v. Torsiello, 188 A.D.2d 523).