Commissioner of Social Services v. PatterSon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioner of Social Services v. PatterSon

282 A.D.2d 410, 723 N.Y.S.2d 666, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4107

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

DecidedApril 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 410 (Commissioner of Social Services v. PatterSon) 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

Commissioner of Social Services v. PatterSon, 282 A.D.2d 410, 723 N.Y.S.2d 666, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about August 20, 1992, holding respondent in contempt for violating a child support order, fixing his arrears at $12,661, and committing him to jail for six months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The testimony of the child’s mother and the records of the Support Collection Unit showing respondent’s arrears established, prima facie, that respondent’s failure to comply with the support order was willful, and required him to come forward with some credible evidence that he was unable to make the ordered payments (see, Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 68-70). This respondent failed to do. His claims of poverty were properly rejected for failure to explain credibly his unemployment or to account for the lavish jewelry he wore to court. We have considered and rejected respondent’s other arguments. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about August 20, 1992, holding respondent in contempt for violating a child support order, fixing his arrears at $12,661, and committing him to jail for six months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The testimony of the child’s mother and the records of the Support Collection Unit showing respondent’s arrears established, prima facie, that respondent’s failure to comply with the support order was willful, and required him to come forward with some credible evidence that he was unable to make the ordered payments (see, Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 68-70). This respondent failed to do. His claims of poverty were properly rejected for failure to explain credibly his unemployment or to account for the lavish jewelry he wore to court. We have considered and rejected respondent’s other arguments. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 410, 723 N.Y.S.2d 666, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-of-social-services-v-patterson-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack