Hoyt v. Pierce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoyt v. Pierce

31 A.D.2d 582, 295 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2872

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 582 (Hoyt v. Pierce) 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

Hoyt v. Pierce, 31 A.D.2d 582, 295 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Broome County, entered May 2, 1968, which adjudged the appellant in contempt of court, ordered that the suspension of sentence in a prior contempt order be withdrawn, and imposed a jail sentence. The sole issue presented by appellant is whether it ■ is “ constitutionally permissible for the Family Court to imprison a person for failure to make support payments as required by the Family Court Act”; appellant contending that he “has been denied his constitutional rights in that he has been sentenced to jail for failure to pay a civil debt.” The record discloses, however, that punishment was imposed solely for willful disobedience of the court’s mandate. (See Fuller v. Fuller, 31 A D 2d 587.) Order affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum by Staley, Jr., J.

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

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Broome County, entered May 2, 1968, which adjudged the appellant in contempt of court, ordered that the suspension of sentence in a prior contempt order be withdrawn, and imposed a jail sentence. The sole issue presented by appellant is whether it ■ is “ constitutionally permissible for the Family Court to imprison a person for failure to make support payments as required by the Family Court Act”; appellant contending that he “has been denied his constitutional rights in that he has been sentenced to jail for failure to pay a civil debt.” The record discloses, however, that punishment was imposed solely for willful disobedience of the court’s mandate. (See Fuller v. Fuller, 31 A D 2d 587.) Order affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum by Staley, Jr., J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 582, 295 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoyt-v-pierce-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack