Hoistion v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoistion v. Abrams

287 A.D.2d 629, 731 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9837

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 629 (Hoistion v. Abrams) 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

Hoistion v. Abrams, 287 A.D.2d 629, 731 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Shapiro, J.), dated September 27, 2000, as, upon finding that he wilfully violated an order of the same court, dated August 3, 1999, committed him to a term of four consecutive weekends in the Orange County Jail. By decision and order of this Court dated November 8, 2000, enforcement of the order dated September 27, 2000, was stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal.

Ordered that the order is modified, as a matter of discretion and in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to time served; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence adduced at the hearing established that the appellant wilfully violated the August 3, 1999, visitation order which clearly and unequivocally expressed that the respondent was to have visitation with the children on Presidents’ Day weekend in February (see, Matter of Barcham-Reichman v Reichman, 250 AD2d 609, 610; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583). Although the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a sentence of incarceration, the term of four consecutive weekends in jail is excessive under the circumstances, and we modify the order to reduce that term to one weekend in jail, which already has been served (see, Matter of Barcham-Reichman v Reichman, supra). Santucci, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Shapiro, J.), dated September 27, 2000, as, upon finding that he wilfully violated an order of the same court, dated August 3, 1999, committed him to a term of four consecutive weekends in the Orange County Jail. By decision and order of this Court dated November 8, 2000, enforcement of the order dated September 27, 2000, was stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal.

Ordered that the order is modified, as a matter of discretion and in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to time served; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence adduced at the hearing established that the appellant wilfully violated the August 3, 1999, visitation order which clearly and unequivocally expressed that the respondent was to have visitation with the children on Presidents’ Day weekend in February (see, Matter of Barcham-Reichman v Reichman, 250 AD2d 609, 610; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583). Although the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a sentence of incarceration, the term of four consecutive weekends in jail is excessive under the circumstances, and we modify the order to reduce that term to one weekend in jail, which already has been served (see, Matter of Barcham-Reichman v Reichman, supra). Santucci, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 629, 731 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoistion-v-abrams-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack