Mass DOR/CSE ex rel. Cunningham v. Haystrand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mass DOR/CSE ex rel. Cunningham v. Haystrand

256 A.D.2d 1235, 684 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14420

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1235 (Mass DOR/CSE ex rel. Cunningham v. Haystrand) 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

Mass DOR/CSE ex rel. Cunningham v. Haystrand, 256 A.D.2d 1235, 684 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The record supports Family Court’s determination that respondent willfully violated a prior support order. Respondent’s undisputed failure to pay support constitutes prima facie evidence of willfulness (see, Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]; Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 69; Matter of Dart v Howell, 237 AD2d 825). Family Court, which was in the best position to evaluate the evidence (see, Matter of Susan M. v Louis N., 206 AD2d 612, 614), was entitled to reject as lacking in credibility the testimony of respondent that he was unable to make the required payments. (Appeal from Order of Ontario County Family Court, Harvey, J. — Support.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The record supports Family Court’s determination that respondent willfully violated a prior support order. Respondent’s undisputed failure to pay support constitutes prima facie evidence of willfulness (see, Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]; Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 69; Matter of Dart v Howell, 237 AD2d 825). Family Court, which was in the best position to evaluate the evidence (see, Matter of Susan M. v Louis N., 206 AD2d 612, 614), was entitled to reject as lacking in credibility the testimony of respondent that he was unable to make the required payments. (Appeal from Order of Ontario County Family Court, Harvey, J. — Support.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1235, 684 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mass-dorcse-ex-rel-cunningham-v-haystrand-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack