Lamagro v. Murray

NYC Family Court

Lamagro v. Murray

107 Misc. 2d 579, 435 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2904

CourtNew York City Family Court

DecidedDecember 30, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 107 Misc. 2d 579 (Lamagro v. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Family Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lamagro v. Murray, 107 Misc. 2d 579, 435 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2904 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Richard D. Rosenbloóm, J.

This proceeding was brought by petitioner to enforce the terms of a Supreme Court order requiring respondent to pay $45 per week for the support of a child. Respondent denied that he had failed to comply with the order, asserting that petitioner had denied him the right to visit with the child. The issue of support arrears was referred to a hearing examiner pursuant to the provisions of section 439 of the Family Court Act. During the hearing, petitioner objected to testimony regarding visitation as being beyond the hearing examiner’s jurisdiction. The hearing examiner ruled that the question of refusal of visitation was a question of law and referred the matter to the court for determination.

This petition is brought pursuant to section 461 (subd [b], par [i]) of the Family Court Act which is one of the proceedings specifically enumerated in subdivision (b) of section 439 in which the court may refer the issues of fact to a hearing examiner. Subdivision (b) of section 439 goes on to provide that “issues of custody, visitation, orders of protection, and exclusive possession of the home” may not be so referred.

Respondent’s contentions are pleaded in a document entitled “Answer and Cross-petition.” He asks that the enforcement proceeding be dismissed and that petitioner [580]*580be found to have violated the order as to visitation. The court agrees that respondent’s request for affirmative relief of a violation finding against petitioner would constitute an “issue of visitation” and would be beyond the powers of a hearing examiner. However, a deprivation of visitation, when not required by some pressing concern for the welfare of the mother or the child, may be the basis to suspend a support obligation. (See Sipos v Sipos, 73 AD2d 1055; Abraham v Abraham, 44 AD2d 675.) The claim of denial of visitation as a defense in no way changes the character of this proceeding as one brought pursuant to section 461 of the Family Court Act, over which the hearing examiner has jurisdiction.

This matter is returned to the hearing examiner who is directed to report on the following issues of fact:

1. The amount of any arrears under the Supreme Court order;

2. Whether or not respondent has been deprived of visitation for a reason not required by some pressing concern for the welfare of the mother or child;

3. If not, the method of payment of any arrears.

Upon receipt of the hearing examiner’s report, this matter is referred to another Judge of this court for further proceedings.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Richard D. Rosenbloóm, J.

This proceeding was brought by petitioner to enforce the terms of a Supreme Court order requiring respondent to pay $45 per week for the support of a child. Respondent denied that he had failed to comply with the order, asserting that petitioner had denied him the right to visit with the child. The issue of support arrears was referred to a hearing examiner pursuant to the provisions of section 439 of the Family Court Act. During the hearing, petitioner objected to testimony regarding visitation as being beyond the hearing examiner’s jurisdiction. The hearing examiner ruled that the question of refusal of visitation was a question of law and referred the matter to the court for determination.

This petition is brought pursuant to section 461 (subd [b], par [i]) of the Family Court Act which is one of the proceedings specifically enumerated in subdivision (b) of section 439 in which the court may refer the issues of fact to a hearing examiner. Subdivision (b) of section 439 goes on to provide that “issues of custody, visitation, orders of protection, and exclusive possession of the home” may not be so referred.

Respondent’s contentions are pleaded in a document entitled “Answer and Cross-petition.” He asks that the enforcement proceeding be dismissed and that petitioner [580]*580be found to have violated the order as to visitation. The court agrees that respondent’s request for affirmative relief of a violation finding against petitioner would constitute an “issue of visitation” and would be beyond the powers of a hearing examiner. However, a deprivation of visitation, when not required by some pressing concern for the welfare of the mother or the child, may be the basis to suspend a support obligation. (See Sipos v Sipos, 73 AD2d 1055; Abraham v Abraham, 44 AD2d 675.) The claim of denial of visitation as a defense in no way changes the character of this proceeding as one brought pursuant to section 461 of the Family Court Act, over which the hearing examiner has jurisdiction.

This matter is returned to the hearing examiner who is directed to report on the following issues of fact:

1. The amount of any arrears under the Supreme Court order;

2. Whether or not respondent has been deprived of visitation for a reason not required by some pressing concern for the welfare of the mother or child;

3. If not, the method of payment of any arrears.

Upon receipt of the hearing examiner’s report, this matter is referred to another Judge of this court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 Misc. 2d 579, 435 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamagro-v-murray-nycfamct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack