You are here: / / FATHER HAD PAID ALL THE CHILD SUPPORT HE OWED; THE SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION...

FATHER HAD PAID ALL THE CHILD SUPPORT HE OWED; THE SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the court should not have imposed a sentence of incarceration on father because father had paid all of the child support he owed:

We disagree … with the Family Court’s imposition of a sentence of incarceration upon its finding of willfulness since the parties agreed at the hearing that the father had paid the full amount due and owing. Although the court is empowered to impose a sentence of incarceration of up to six months for willful failure to comply with a support order (see Family Ct Act § 454[3][a] …), such incarceration may only continue until the offender complies with the support order (see Judiciary Law § 774[1] … ). Here, the court sentenced the father to a period of incarceration of 40 days, to be suspended under certain conditions, after the parties already had agreed that the father had paid all that was due and owing at that time. Under such circumstances, no period of incarceration should have been imposed … . Accordingly, since the court imposed a sentence of incarceration in contravention of Judiciary Law § 774(1), that provision of the … order must be deleted. Matter of Augliera v Araujo, 2020 NY Slip Op 03510, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

You might also like
NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS THE PERSON WITH THE SAME NAME.
HERE THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT DID NOT MAKE IT “UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR” THAT THE LOSER WOULD PAY THE WINNER’S ATTORNEY’S FEES; THEREFORE THE FEE AWARD WAS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Security at Homeless Shelter Is a Governmental Function–City Immune from Suit by Plaintiff Who Was Assaulted at the Shelter/Private Security Company Not Immune/Plaintiff Was a Third-Party Beneficiary of the Contract Between the Department of Homeless Services and the Security Company/Security Company Did Not Demonstrate It Was Free from Negligence and the Assault Was Not Foreseeable
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SCARANGELLA DEFENSE WHICH PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING A SAFETY DEVICE ON THE BUYER RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER.
Bank Did Not Demonstrate It Had Possession of the Note Prior to Commencing Foreclosure Action—Bank Did Not Have Standing to Bring the Action
THE APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT WAS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AN INFORMANT WHO WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE RELIABLE; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE RULINGS IN THIS CUSTODY/PARENTAL ACCESS CASE, HEARINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD; THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A DANGEROUS CONDITION PROPERLY SURVIVED... ALTHOUGH PETITIONER ULTIMATELY PREVAILED AND WAS PROVIDED WITH THE NASSAU COUNTY...