In re Ariel S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ariel S.

111 A.D.3d 496, 974 N.Y.S.2d 783

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.3d 496 (In re Ariel S.) 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

In re Ariel S., 111 A.D.3d 496, 974 N.Y.S.2d 783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Family-Court, Bronx County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2012, which, upon appellant’s admission that she committed civil contempt, ordered her incarcerated for fourteen days, unanimously modified, on the law, the disposition vacated and a suspended judgment substituted therefor, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Appellant admitted that she knowingly and willfully violated a court order suspending her visitation rights of her children. As such, the Family Court correctly found appellant in civil contempt (Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 582-583 [1983]).

We find under the circumstances that the imposition of fourteen days in prison was inappropriate. Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Freedman, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

— Order, Family-Court, Bronx County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2012, which, upon appellant’s admission that she committed civil contempt, ordered her incarcerated for fourteen days, unanimously modified, on the law, the disposition vacated and a suspended judgment substituted therefor, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Appellant admitted that she knowingly and willfully violated a court order suspending her visitation rights of her children. As such, the Family Court correctly found appellant in civil contempt (Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 582-583 [1983]).

We find under the circumstances that the imposition of fourteen days in prison was inappropriate. Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Freedman, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.3d 496, 974 N.Y.S.2d 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ariel-s-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack