Grasso v. LaRocca

54 A.D.3d 760, 864 N.Y.S.2d 88
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 9, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 54 A.D.3d 760 (Grasso v. LaRocca) 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
Grasso v. LaRocca, 54 A.D.3d 760, 864 N.Y.S.2d 88 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of commitment of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated October 24, 2007, which, upon confirming an order of the same court (Orlando, S.M.), also dated October 24, 2007, which, after a hearing, found that he willfully violated a prior order of support, committed him to the custody of the Suffolk County Correctional Facility for a term of imprisonment of five months unless he paid the sum of $5,000 to the Suffolk County Child Support Collection Unit. By decision and order on motion dated November 23, 2007, this Court directed that the father be released from civil confinement pending hearing and determination of this appeal upon certain conditions.

Ordered that the order of commitment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing and a new determination thereafter on the issue of the father’s ability to pay his child support obligations.

In the absence of proof of an ability to pay, an order of commitment for willful violation of a support order may not stand (see Yeager v Yeager, 38 AD3d 534, 535 [2007]; Matter of Kainth v Kainth, 36 AD3d 915, 916 [2007]; Bisnoff v Bisnoff, 27 AD3d 606, 607 [2006]; Matter of Riccio v Paquette, 284 AD2d 335 [2001]; Family Ct Act § 455 [5]). The father’s ability to pay was not adequately explored at the hearing. The order of commitment was, therefore, improperly made. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing and a new determination thereafter on the issue of the father’s ability to pay his child support obligations (see Matter of Riccio v Paquette, 284 AD2d at 335). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Mosher v. Woodcock
2018 NY Slip Op 2380 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Lecei v. Lecei
112 A.D.3d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Ceballos v. Castillo
85 A.D.3d 1161 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 A.D.3d 760, 864 N.Y.S.2d 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grasso-v-larocca-nyappdiv-2008.