Keech v. Bell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keech v. Bell

251 A.D.2d 1055, 673 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7137

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

DecidedJune 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 1055 (Keech v. Bell) 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

Keech v. Bell, 251 A.D.2d 1055, 673 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of commitment entered following a hearing. The evidence adduced at the hearing, which established that respondent failed to comply with a support order, was prima facie evidence of a willful violation (see, Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]; Matter of Rosa v Borowski, 101 AD2d 668). Respondent testified regarding the circumstances surrounding his failure to comply with the support order. Family Court found that respondent’s testimony was incredible. There is no reason to disturb that finding (see, Matter of Tarbell v Tarbell, 241 AD2d 702; Matter of Van Demark v Van Demark, 144 AD2d 862, 863). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Hunt, J. — Support.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of commitment entered following a hearing. The evidence adduced at the hearing, which established that respondent failed to comply with a support order, was prima facie evidence of a willful violation (see, Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]; Matter of Rosa v Borowski, 101 AD2d 668). Respondent testified regarding the circumstances surrounding his failure to comply with the support order. Family Court found that respondent’s testimony was incredible. There is no reason to disturb that finding (see, Matter of Tarbell v Tarbell, 241 AD2d 702; Matter of Van Demark v Van Demark, 144 AD2d 862, 863). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Hunt, J. — Support.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 1055, 673 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keech-v-bell-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack