Kysor v. Kysor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kysor v. Kysor

256 A.D.2d 1186, 682 N.Y.S.2d 765

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1186 (Kysor v. Kysor) 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

Kysor v. Kysor, 256 A.D.2d 1186, 682 N.Y.S.2d 765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in punishing plaintiff for a contempt of court. An order of contempt is not appropriate unless the court finds that other enforcement methods, including an income execution (see, CPLR 5241, 5242), would not be effective to secure payment of plaintiff’s court-ordered obligations to pay support and defendant’s counsel fees (see, Domestic Relations Law § 245). The contempt order, however, also directs plaintiff’s employer to deduct from plaintiff’s wages an amount to satisfy the support provisions and to pay that amount to defendant. Thus, the court implicitly determined that a remedy other than contempt would be effective to enforce payment of plaintiff’s obligations. If other enforcement methods are available and appropriate, a finding of contempt is not authorized. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, O’Donnell, J. — Contempt.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in punishing plaintiff for a contempt of court. An order of contempt is not appropriate unless the court finds that other enforcement methods, including an income execution (see, CPLR 5241, 5242), would not be effective to secure payment of plaintiff’s court-ordered obligations to pay support and defendant’s counsel fees (see, Domestic Relations Law § 245). The contempt order, however, also directs plaintiff’s employer to deduct from plaintiff’s wages an amount to satisfy the support provisions and to pay that amount to defendant. Thus, the court implicitly determined that a remedy other than contempt would be effective to enforce payment of plaintiff’s obligations. If other enforcement methods are available and appropriate, a finding of contempt is not authorized. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, O’Donnell, J. — Contempt.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1186, 682 N.Y.S.2d 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kysor-v-kysor-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack