Cunha v. Urias

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cunha v. Urias

101 A.D.3d 996, 957 N.Y.2d 228

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 19, 2012·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

By contesting the father’s contempt petition on the merits without objecting that it did not comply with the notice and warning requirements of Judiciary Law § 756, the mother waived any objections to the validity of the petition based upon those requirements (see Matter of Rappoport, 58 NY2d 725, 726 [1982]; Matter of Laland v Edmond, 13 AD3d 451 [2004]; Matter of Restivo v Cincu, 11 AD3d 621 [2004]).

Moreover, contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family [997]*997Court properly, in effect, adjudicated her in contempt for willfully failing to obey the visitation provision of a prior order (see Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583 [1983]). However, under the circumstances of this case, the punishment imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see Matter of Rjeoutski v Mavrina, 100 AD3d 908 [2012]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

By contesting the father’s contempt petition on the merits without objecting that it did not comply with the notice and warning requirements of Judiciary Law § 756, the mother waived any objections to the validity of the petition based upon those requirements (see Matter of Rappoport, 58 NY2d 725, 726 [1982]; Matter of Laland v Edmond, 13 AD3d 451 [2004]; Matter of Restivo v Cincu, 11 AD3d 621 [2004]).

Moreover, contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family [997]*997Court properly, in effect, adjudicated her in contempt for willfully failing to obey the visitation provision of a prior order (see Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583 [1983]). However, under the circumstances of this case, the punishment imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see Matter of Rjeoutski v Mavrina, 100 AD3d 908 [2012]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cunha v. Urias, 101 A.D.3d 996, 957 N.Y.2d 228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

101 A.D.3d 996 (Cunha v. Urias) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related