Arguinzoni v. Arguinzoni

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arguinzoni v. Arguinzoni

210 A.D.2d 324, 620 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12504

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 12, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 324 (Arguinzoni v. Arguinzoni) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arguinzoni v. Arguinzoni, 210 A.D.2d 324, 620 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12504 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, David Arguinzoni appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (De Phillips, J.), dated April 6, 1994, which, after a hearing, adjudged him to be in violation of an order of protection and sentenced him to consecutive terms of imprisonment of six months, and four months, respectively, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated July 26, 1994, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated April 6, 1994, as imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that portion of the order was superseded by the order dated July 26, 1994, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 6, 1994, is otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 26, 1994, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, upon reargument, the provision of the order dated April 6, 1994, which imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment is deleted, and a provision is substituted therefor stating that the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

Family Court Act § 846-a provides, in part, that "[i]f a [party] is brought before the court for failure to obey any lawful order issued under this article and if, after hearing, the [325]*325court is satisfied by competent proof that the [party] has willfully failed to obey any such order, the court may * * * commit the [party] to jail for a term not to exceed six months”. Family Court Act § 846-a prohibits, on its face, the imposition of a sentence in excess of six months imprisonment. Accordingly, we direct that the terms of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant run concurrently (see, Matter of Vitti v Vitti, 202 AD2d 917).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, David Arguinzoni appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (De Phillips, J.), dated April 6, 1994, which, after a hearing, adjudged him to be in violation of an order of protection and sentenced him to consecutive terms of imprisonment of six months, and four months, respectively, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated July 26, 1994, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated April 6, 1994, as imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that portion of the order was superseded by the order dated July 26, 1994, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 6, 1994, is otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 26, 1994, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, upon reargument, the provision of the order dated April 6, 1994, which imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment is deleted, and a provision is substituted therefor stating that the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

Family Court Act § 846-a provides, in part, that "[i]f a [party] is brought before the court for failure to obey any lawful order issued under this article and if, after hearing, the [325]*325court is satisfied by competent proof that the [party] has willfully failed to obey any such order, the court may * * * commit the [party] to jail for a term not to exceed six months”. Family Court Act § 846-a prohibits, on its face, the imposition of a sentence in excess of six months imprisonment. Accordingly, we direct that the terms of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant run concurrently (see, Matter of Vitti v Vitti, 202 AD2d 917).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 324, 620 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arguinzoni-v-arguinzoni-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack