DAVIS, MICHELE v. WILLIAMS, KEVIN L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DAVIS, MICHELE v. WILLIAMS, KEVIN L.

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2015

DocketCAF 14-01584

StatusPublished

This text of DAVIS, MICHELE v. WILLIAMS, KEVIN L. (DAVIS, MICHELE v. WILLIAMS, KEVIN L.) 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

DAVIS, MICHELE v. WILLIAMS, KEVIN L., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1212 CAF 14-01584 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MICHELE DAVIS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KEVIN L. WILLIAMS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

LOVALLO & WILLIAMS, BUFFALO (TIMOTHY R. LOVALLO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Deanne M. Tripi, J.), entered July 15, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order revoked a suspended sentence and committed respondent to jail for a period of six months.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order of commitment revoking a suspended sentence and committing him to jail for a period of six months. Inasmuch as respondent has served his sentence, his appeal from the order of commitment is moot (see Matter of Ontario County Support Collection Unit v Falconer, ___ AD3d ___, ___ [Oct. 9, 2015]). To the extent that respondent contends that his appeal is not moot because “a finding of contempt [and willful violation] may have significant collateral consequences,” we note that he failed to appeal from the order finding him in willful violation of the order requiring him to pay child support (see Matter of St. Lawrence County Support Collection Unit v Pratt, 24 AD3d 1050, 1050). Similarly, respondent’s remaining contentions that his support obligations should be reduced and his arrears capped were not addressed by the order appealed from and, in any event, are improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Matter of Kasprowicz v Osgood, 101 AD3d 1760, 1761, lv denied 20 NY3d 863; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Turner, 99 AD3d 1244, 1245).

Entered: November 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1212 CAF 14-01584 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MICHELE DAVIS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KEVIN L. WILLIAMS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

LOVALLO & WILLIAMS, BUFFALO (TIMOTHY R. LOVALLO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Deanne M. Tripi, J.), entered July 15, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order revoked a suspended sentence and committed respondent to jail for a period of six months.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order of commitment revoking a suspended sentence and committing him to jail for a period of six months. Inasmuch as respondent has served his sentence, his appeal from the order of commitment is moot (see Matter of Ontario County Support Collection Unit v Falconer, ___ AD3d ___, ___ [Oct. 9, 2015]). To the extent that respondent contends that his appeal is not moot because “a finding of contempt [and willful violation] may have significant collateral consequences,” we note that he failed to appeal from the order finding him in willful violation of the order requiring him to pay child support (see Matter of St. Lawrence County Support Collection Unit v Pratt, 24 AD3d 1050, 1050). Similarly, respondent’s remaining contentions that his support obligations should be reduced and his arrears capped were not addressed by the order appealed from and, in any event, are improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Matter of Kasprowicz v Osgood, 101 AD3d 1760, 1761, lv denied 20 NY3d 863; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Turner, 99 AD3d 1244, 1245).

Entered: November 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

DAVIS, MICHELE v. WILLIAMS, KEVIN L., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-michele-v-williams-kevin-l-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack