Brancoveanu v. Brancoveanu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brancoveanu v. Brancoveanu

156 A.D.2d 410, 548 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15667

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 11, 1989·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated April 30, 1987, the [411]*411plaintiff husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), dated March 14, 1988, which is in favor of the defendant wife and against him in the amount of $3,400 representing arrears in child support payments and in the additional amount of $1,500 for counsel fees.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 241, interference with or withholding of visitation rights is not a ground for termination of child support or cancellation of arrears of child support. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claims that he suspended payment during a period when he was unable to have visitation is untenable.

We find that the award of counsel fees to the defendant’s attorney was properly made as the instant application by the defendant wife was necessitated solely because the plaintiff willfully failed to honor the prior orders of the courts (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rósete, 70 NY2d 879). We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated April 30, 1987, the [411]*411plaintiff husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), dated March 14, 1988, which is in favor of the defendant wife and against him in the amount of $3,400 representing arrears in child support payments and in the additional amount of $1,500 for counsel fees.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 241, interference with or withholding of visitation rights is not a ground for termination of child support or cancellation of arrears of child support. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claims that he suspended payment during a period when he was unable to have visitation is untenable.

We find that the award of counsel fees to the defendant’s attorney was properly made as the instant application by the defendant wife was necessitated solely because the plaintiff willfully failed to honor the prior orders of the courts (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rósete, 70 NY2d 879). We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Brancoveanu v. Brancoveanu, 156 A.D.2d 410, 548 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

156 A.D.2d 410 (Brancoveanu v. Brancoveanu) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related