Martin v. Delano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Delano

247 A.D.2d 475, 667 N.Y.S.2d 952, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1022

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 475 (Martin v. Delano) 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

Martin v. Delano, 247 A.D.2d 475, 667 N.Y.S.2d 952, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered December 9, 1996, which denied his objection to an order of the same court (Rodriguez, H.E.), entered July 24, 1996, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that the mother was entitled to counsel fees pursuant to Family Court Act § 438 (b) and § 454 (3).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The proof before the Hearing Examiner of the father’s failure to pay court-ordered child support constituted prima facie evidence of a willful violation of the support order (see, Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]). The burden of going forward then shifted to the father to offer competent, credible evidence of his inability to comply with the order (see, Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 69-70; Family Ct Act § 455 [5]). The father, however, failed to demonstrate that he was financially unable to make the required payments. Contrary to the father’s contention, his willful violation of the support order was established by clear and convincing evidence (see, Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch, 229 AD2d 533; Matter of Porcelain v Porcelain, 143 AD2d 834).

The father’s remaining arguments lack merit.

O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered December 9, 1996, which denied his objection to an order of the same court (Rodriguez, H.E.), entered July 24, 1996, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that the mother was entitled to counsel fees pursuant to Family Court Act § 438 (b) and § 454 (3).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The proof before the Hearing Examiner of the father’s failure to pay court-ordered child support constituted prima facie evidence of a willful violation of the support order (see, Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]). The burden of going forward then shifted to the father to offer competent, credible evidence of his inability to comply with the order (see, Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 69-70; Family Ct Act § 455 [5]). The father, however, failed to demonstrate that he was financially unable to make the required payments. Contrary to the father’s contention, his willful violation of the support order was established by clear and convincing evidence (see, Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch, 229 AD2d 533; Matter of Porcelain v Porcelain, 143 AD2d 834).

The father’s remaining arguments lack merit.

O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 475, 667 N.Y.S.2d 952, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-delano-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack