You are here: / / Suspended Sentence for Non-Payment of Support Could Not Be Revoked Without H...
,

Suspended Sentence for Non-Payment of Support Could Not Be Revoked Without Hearing

The Fourth Department ruled that Family Court could not revoke a suspended jail sentence for non-payment of support by the father without giving the father the chance to rebut the allegations against him:

The Support Magistrate previously had issued an order “on consent” in November 2011 (November order), setting forth that the father admitted that he willfully violated the February order and finding him in willful violation of the February order. The Support Magistrate imposed a sentence of four months in jail but suspended the sentence on the condition that the father did not miss two consecutive support payments. *  *  *

Although the court had the discretion to revoke the suspension of the jail sentence, the court erred in doing so without first affording the father “an opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses . . . on the issue whether good cause existed to revoke the suspension of the sentence” (Matter of Thompson v Thompson, 59 AD3d 1104, 1105, quoting Family Ct Act § 433 [a] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Ontario County Dept. of Social Servs. v Hinckley, 226 AD2d 1126, 1126). “No specific form of a hearing is required, but at a minimum the hearing must consist of an adducement of proof coupled with an opportunity to rebut it” (Thompson, 59 AD3d at 1105 [internal quotation marks omitted]). “ ‘[I]t is well settled that neither a colloquy between a respondent and Family Court nor between a respondent’s counsel and the court is sufficient to constitute the required hearing’ ” (id.). Here, there was only the admission of nonpayment by the father’s attorney, which was insufficient (see id.), and there was no opportunity for the father to present evidence rebutting the allegations against him.  In the Matter of Davis v Bond, 281, CAF 12-00553, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO ATTEMPTED GANG ASSAULT, WHICH IS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY AT TRIAL; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HIS PLEA WAS RENDERED INVOLUNTARY BY COUNSEL’S INACCURATE ADVICE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF CONVICTION; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Conviction, Supported by Evidence that (1) the People May Have Violated Their “Brady” Obligation to Inform the Defense of a Plea Deal Made In Return for Testimony and (2) a Juror May Have Had a Mental Disability, Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing
17-YEAR-OLD’S ARE STATUTORILY EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS OF VICTIMS UNDER PENAL LAW 263.11, TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY; RISK-LEVEL REDUCED FROM TWO TO ONE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE GRAND JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE DEFINITION OF “IMPAIRED” IN THE CONTEXT OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192 (4-A) (FELONY AGGRAVATED DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED); THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH THE DEFINITION OF “IMPAIRED” ADOPTED BY THE THIRD DEPARTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Criteria for Allowing Defendant to Proceed Pro Se Explained
FORMER STUDENT’S ALLEGATIONS DEFENDANT COLLEGE BREACHED ITS AGREEMENT THAT IT WOULD NOT DISCLOSE ITS DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE STUDENT TO SCHOOLS TO WHICH THE STUDENT APPLIED FOR ADMISSION PROPERLY SURVIVED THE COLLEGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS; ADOPTING AND APPLYING THE HEIGHTENED STANDARD FOR DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION, THE DEFAMATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Contract Could Potentially Be Performed Within a Year—Dismissal on Statute of Fraud Grounds Properly Denied
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL FROM EITHER A LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE LADDER OR SCAFFOLD TIPPED OR SHIFTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH 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

Duty to Defend Punishment Was “Shocking to One’s Sense of Fairness”