Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick

249 A.D.2d 441, 671 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4280

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

DecidedApril 20, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 441 (Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick) 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

Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 249 A.D.2d 441, 671 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated July 25, 1997, as, after a hearing, (1) found him in civil and criminal contempt for failing to comply with certain visitation provisions contained in the parties’ stipulation of custody and visitation, (2) fined him $250 and directed that he be incarcerated for a period of 21 days, (3) terminated the mother’s child support obligation, and (4) granted the mother’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a lawful order of the court clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect, that he had knowledge of that order, and that he wilfully disobeyed that order (see, Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection v Department of Envtl. Conservation, 70 NY2d 233; County of Rockland v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., 62 NY2d 11).

The father’s remaining contentions lack merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated July 25, 1997, as, after a hearing, (1) found him in civil and criminal contempt for failing to comply with certain visitation provisions contained in the parties’ stipulation of custody and visitation, (2) fined him $250 and directed that he be incarcerated for a period of 21 days, (3) terminated the mother’s child support obligation, and (4) granted the mother’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a lawful order of the court clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect, that he had knowledge of that order, and that he wilfully disobeyed that order (see, Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection v Department of Envtl. Conservation, 70 NY2d 233; County of Rockland v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., 62 NY2d 11).

The father’s remaining contentions lack merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 441, 671 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzpatrick-v-fitzpatrick-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack