Cattell v. Cattell

254 A.D.2d 357, 678 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10749
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 13, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 357 (Cattell v. Cattell) 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
Cattell v. Cattell, 254 A.D.2d 357, 678 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Trainor, J.), entered November 15, 1996, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Lynaugh, H.E.), entered September 27, 1996, which found him to be in willful violation of an order dated October 25, 1993, and granted the petitioner’s application for leave to enter a money judgment in the principal sum of $5,600 representing child support arrears, and (2) from an order of the same court dated November 15, 1996, which, upon finding him in contempt of court for his failure to comply with the order dated October 25, 1993, ordered him imprisoned for a term of 90 days unless he made a payment of $5,600.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court was entitled to adopt the findings of the Hearing Examiner that the father willfully violated the child support order, without holding a new hearing before issuing the order of commitment (see, Matter of Mazzilli v Mazzilli, 248 AD2d 474; Louie v Ong, 211 AD2d 495). Moreover, in light of the proof that the father owed child support arrears in the amount of $6,600, the $5,600 he was required to pay in order to purge the contempt was not unreasonable.

We defer to the findings of the Hearing Examiner and the Family Court who rejected as not credible the father’s claim that he was unable to comply with the support order because he was unemployable due to physical disability, since they had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see, Matter of Jimenez v Jimenez, 222 AD2d 589; Matter of Maddox v Doty, 186 AD2d 135). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Nickel v. Nickel
2019 NY Slip Op 3973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Gorsky v. Kessler
133 A.D.3d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Gorsky v. Kessler
79 A.D.3d 746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Perrego v. Perrego
63 A.D.3d 1072 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Piernick v. Nazinitsky
48 A.D.3d 690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Frydman v. Frydman
32 A.D.3d 455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Barrett v. Pickett
5 A.D.3d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Canazon v. Cooper
300 A.D.2d 395 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Andre v. Brumaire
299 A.D.2d 355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Leslie H. v. Antonio C.
264 A.D.2d 735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 A.D.2d 357, 678 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cattell-v-cattell-nyappdiv-1998.