Burris v. Loving

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burris v. Loving

72 A.D.3d 1625, 899 N.Y.S.2d 687

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

DecidedApril 30, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 1625 (Burris v. Loving) 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

Burris v. Loving, 72 A.D.3d 1625, 899 N.Y.S.2d 687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Carter, J.), entered April 8, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order, inter alia, found that respondent willfully violated an order of child support.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order finding that he willfully violated an order of child support and sentencing him to 30 days in jail. To the extent that the father’s contentions herein are the same as those raised in Matter of Paige v Paige (50 AD3d 1542 [2008]), we affirm for the reasons set forth therein. We add only that, contrary to the further contentions of the father, Family Court properly refused to issue a suspended commitment order (see Matter of Monet v Frazer, 40 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2007]; cf. Matter of Heyn v Burr, 19 AD3d 896 [2005]), and the father received meaningful representation (see generally Matter of Moore v Blank, 8 AD3d 1090 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 606 [2004]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Carni, Sconiers and Pine, JJ.

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

— Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Carter, J.), entered April 8, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order, inter alia, found that respondent willfully violated an order of child support.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order finding that he willfully violated an order of child support and sentencing him to 30 days in jail. To the extent that the father’s contentions herein are the same as those raised in Matter of Paige v Paige (50 AD3d 1542 [2008]), we affirm for the reasons set forth therein. We add only that, contrary to the further contentions of the father, Family Court properly refused to issue a suspended commitment order (see Matter of Monet v Frazer, 40 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2007]; cf. Matter of Heyn v Burr, 19 AD3d 896 [2005]), and the father received meaningful representation (see generally Matter of Moore v Blank, 8 AD3d 1090 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 606 [2004]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Carni, Sconiers and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 1625, 899 N.Y.S.2d 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burris-v-loving-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack