Gifford v. Gifford

223 A.D.2d 669, 637 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 684
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 29, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 669 (Gifford v. Gifford) 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
Gifford v. Gifford, 223 A.D.2d 669, 637 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated May 5, 1988, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered June 22, 1995, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to hold him in contempt of court for failure to pay child support and denied his cross motion, inter alia, for a downward modification, and (2) an order of the same court, entered September 20, 1995, which directed that he be incarcerated in the county jail for 30 days or until he paid child support arrears of $16,200.

Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and a new determination in accordance herewith.

We agree with the defendant’s contention that he was denied his right to counsel when he was not informed of his right to [670]*670the assistance of counsel on the return of the contempt application (see, Matter of Kissel v Kissel, 59 AD2d 1036). Additionally, the court should have conducted an inquiry to determine whether the defendant should have been appointed counsel as an indigent after he requested counsel at the commitment proceeding (see, Matter of Williams v Williams, 91 AD2d 1044).

The defendant was entitled to a hearing as to whether he was financially able to comply with the child support order since he asserted as a defense to the plaintiffs motion to hold him in contempt and in his cross motion that he did not have the means to pay support (see, Domestic Relations Law § 246; Boritzer v Boritzer, 137 AD2d 477; Hough v Hough, 125 AD2d 791).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Alphonse v. Alphonse
2020 NY Slip Op 07374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Moiseeva v. Sichkin
129 A.D.3d 974 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Santucci v. Santucci
92 A.D.3d 666 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Bergman v. Bergman
84 A.D.3d 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Cohen v. Cohen
33 Misc. 3d 444 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Bader v. Hazzis
77 A.D.3d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Ullah v. Entezari-Ullah
40 A.D.3d 201 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Greco v. Rodriguez
28 A.D.3d 422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
DeMeo v. DeMeo
281 A.D.2d 662 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
DeMarco v. Raftery
242 A.D.2d 625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
223 A.D.2d 669, 637 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gifford-v-gifford-nyappdiv-1996.