Christie S. v. Marqueo S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Christie S. v. Marqueo S.

106 A.D.3d 592, 965 N.Y.S.2d 348

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

DecidedMay 23, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 106 A.D.3d 592 (Christie S. v. Marqueo S.) 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

Christie S. v. Marqueo S., 106 A.D.3d 592, 965 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about May 16, 2012, which confirmed the Support Magistrate’s finding that respondent-appellant father had willfully violated an order of support, dated August 23, 2006, and set an undertaking in the amount of $6,000, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

As appellant resides in New Jersey, beyond the scope of the arrest warrant issued by the Family Court in connection with this matter, and he has not been in contact with his appellate counsel, he is presently a fugitive who is unavailable to obey the Family Court’s mandate in the event of an affirmance (Matter of [593]*593Skiff-Murray v Murray, 305 AD2d 751, 752-753 [3d Dept 2003]). Accordingly, his appeal may not be heard (id. at 753; see also Wechsler v Wechsler, 45 AD3d 470, 472 [1st Dept 2007]). Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz and Feinman, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about May 16, 2012, which confirmed the Support Magistrate’s finding that respondent-appellant father had willfully violated an order of support, dated August 23, 2006, and set an undertaking in the amount of $6,000, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

As appellant resides in New Jersey, beyond the scope of the arrest warrant issued by the Family Court in connection with this matter, and he has not been in contact with his appellate counsel, he is presently a fugitive who is unavailable to obey the Family Court’s mandate in the event of an affirmance (Matter of [593]*593Skiff-Murray v Murray, 305 AD2d 751, 752-753 [3d Dept 2003]). Accordingly, his appeal may not be heard (id. at 753; see also Wechsler v Wechsler, 45 AD3d 470, 472 [1st Dept 2007]). Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 592, 965 N.Y.S.2d 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christie-s-v-marqueo-s-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack