You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO...
, ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT AND DEFENDANT’S PETITION TO REDUCE THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS; FAMILY COURT HAD GRANTED DEFENDANT’S PETITION AND DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined a hearing was necessary on plaintiff’s motion to hold defendant in civil contempt for failure to pay child support and on defendant’s petition to reduce his child support payments:

… [T]he parties’ submissions presented issues of fact with regard to the defendant’s actual income … , which the Supreme Court failed to ascertain … and whether or not he was and is able to comply with his child support obligation under the judgment of divorce … . Under such circumstances, the court erred in granting the defendant’s petition to modify the child support provisions of the judgment of divorce to the extent of directing him to pay $25 per month in child support retroactive to July 10, 2018, and in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to adjudge the defendant in civil contempt for failure to pay child support without conducting a hearing … . Zeidman v Zeidman, 2022 NY Slip Op 00906, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN AGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT ABOUT EACH HAVING 50% OWNERSHIP OF TWO RESTAURANTS; DEFENDANT USED THE RESOURCES FROM THOSE RESTAURANTS TO OPEN A THIRD; PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ASSESSEMENT OF RISK LEVEL POINTS WHICH WERE NOT REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE OR THE BOARD VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2014 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO FILL VACANCIES IN THE 2016 COUNTY COMMITTEE (SECOND DEPT).
30-DAY TIME TO APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO ALL PARTIES IS TRIGGERED BY THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER OR JUDGMENT WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF ENTRY BY ANY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS (CUPID AND ROBINSON) DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT AND HIS NEGLIGENCE CAUSED THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF CUPID, NOT PLAINTIFF ROBINSON, WAS DRIVING THE CAR DID NOT CREATE A RELEVANT QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
INSURER WAS NOTIFIED OF PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFFS NOT THE INSURED; DISCLAIMER ONLY ADDRESSED INSURED’S NOTIFICATION FAILURE AND WAS THEREFORE INEFFECTIVE AGAINST PLANTIFFS.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, NOTWITHSTANDING EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE SAID HE PLACED THE LADDER ON A DROP CLOTH (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DISMISSAL/SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN OPPOSITION AND ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE INSURER DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM UNTIL 23 MONTHS AFTER... IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE THE LACK OF JURISDICTION...