Barcham-Reichman v. Reichman

250 A.D.2d 609, 672 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4946
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 4, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 609 (Barcham-Reichman v. Reichman) 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
Barcham-Reichman v. Reichman, 250 A.D.2d 609, 672 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4946 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In a contempt proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rock-land County (Garvey, J.), dated September 18, 1997, which, upon a finding that he violated certain provisions of an order of visitation of the same court dated January 29, 1997, sentenced him to a term of six months in the Rockland County Jail, which was suspended upon the condition that he serve six months of alternate weekends in jail from Friday evening until Sunday evening commencing September 19, 1997, and ending March 15, 1998. By decision and order of this Court dated October 1, 1997, enforcement of the order dated September 18, 1997, was stayed pending appeal.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, by deleting therefrom the provision suspending the sentence of incarceration upon the condition that the father serve six months of alternate weekends in jail from Friday evening until Sunday evening commencing September 19, 1997, and ending March 15, 1998, and by substituting therefor a provision suspending the sentence of incarceration upon the condition that the father serve three months of alternate weekends in jail from Friday evening until Sunday evening, commencing on the next fall weekend following five days after his receipt of a copy of this order with notice of entry; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by competent proof, that the father willfully violated the January 29, 1997, order of visitation which clearly and unequivocally expressed that the mother was to have visitation with the son on the second night of Passover, and that she was to be notified when the father traveled with the son out of State (see generally, Matter of Lippman v Lippman, 239 AD2d 346; Haber v Haber, 225 AD2d 664). Additionally, inasmuch as the father failed to provide a legitimate excuse for having twice violated the visitation order, and in view of the fact that the mother’s rights were prejudiced by the father’s conduct, we conclude [610]*610that the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imposing a sentence of incarceration (see, Matter of Lippman v Lippman, supra; Matter of Arguinzoni v Arguinzoni, 210 AD2d 324). However, wé find that the conditional term of six months of alternate weekends in jail is excessive under the circumstances, and we modify the order to reduce that term to three months of alternate weekends in jail. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Mendoza-Pautrat v. Razdan
2018 NY Slip Op 2790 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Kellezi v. Kellezi
106 A.D.3d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Wiebke v. Wiebke
77 A.D.3d 964 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Jules v. Corriette
55 A.D.3d 732 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Munster v. Munster
17 A.D.3d 600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Laland v. Edmond
13 A.D.3d 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Holden v. Cardozo
8 A.D.3d 567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Hoistion v. Abrams
287 A.D.2d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
250 A.D.2d 609, 672 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barcham-reichman-v-reichman-nyappdiv-1998.