You are here: / / FAMILY COURT PROPERLY IMPOSED THREE CONSECUTIVE SIX-MONTH JAIL TERMS UPON...

FAMILY COURT PROPERLY IMPOSED THREE CONSECUTIVE SIX-MONTH JAIL TERMS UPON FATHER WHO WILFULLY FAILED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined Family Court had the power to order father to serve three consecutive six-month jail terms for willful failure to pay child support. Father never claimed an inability to pay:

The father in this case demonstrated the willful flaunting of support orders the Legislature sought to address in passing the Support Enforcement Act. Without making any attempt at an excuse for inability to pay, the father repeatedly failed to meet his court-ordered support obligations. His conduct resulted in a substantial amount owed in arrears and two suspended orders of commitment, one each in 2010 and 2012, for willfully violating Family Court support orders. Both suspended commitments were conditioned upon the father making timely child support payments. In 2013, Family Court found yet a third willful violation of a prior order, revoked the two suspended orders for the past violations, sentenced the father to a new six-month sentence, resulting in three consecutive six-month sentences. Once again, the father made no attempt to plead an inability to pay or seek modification of the support orders.

In ordering the term of incarceration, Family Court determined that the father willfully failed to comply with his child support obligations on three separate violation petitions and found good cause existed to revoke the father’s two suspended commitments. Matter of Columbia County Support Collection Unit v Risley, 2016 NY Slip Op 04325, CtApp 6-7-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT PROPERLY IMPOSED THREE CONSECUTIVE SIX-MONTH JAIL TERMS UPON FATHER WHO WILFULLY FAILED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT)/CHILD SUPPORT (FAMILY COURT PROPERLY IMPOSED THREE CONSECUTIVE SIX-MONTH JAIL TERMS UPON FATHER WHO WILFULLY FAILED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT)

You might also like
Pursuant to CPLR 5225, a Parent Bank Can Not Be Garnished Because a Judgment Debtor’s Assets Are Held in a Foreign Subsidiary Bank
PETITIONER NEED NOT CHALLENGE THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT EVERY YEAR TO BE ENTITLED TO BUSINESS INVESTMENT EXEMPTION REFUNDS FOR THOSE YEARS.
WHERE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IS A BUSINESS ENTITY, HERE BLOOMBERG L.P., AN OWNER OR OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, HERE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, IS NOT AN EMPLOYER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST MICHAEL BLOOMBERG WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).
“Substantial Factor in Producing the Injury” Jury Instruction (Re: Causation) Did Not Reduce Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM CLARIFIED.
Question of Fact Whether City Had a Special Relationship with Plaintiff Such that the City Owed a Duty to the Plaintiff Over and Above the Duty Owed to the Public at Large
DEFENDANT, A PAIN MANAGEMENT PHYSICIAN WHO OPERATED A “PILL MILL,” WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER IN THE DEATHS OF TWO PATIENTS WHO DIED OF OPIOID OVERDOSE (CT APP).
Defendant May Not Be Cross-Examined About Criminal Conviction on Direct Appeal

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HAS AUTHORITY TO BRING CRIMINAL ACTIONS IN LOCAL COURTS PURSUANT... ADMISSION OF THE RESULTS OF A MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY...