Matter of Natasha M. v. James H.

2019 NY Slip Op 985
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 7, 2019
Docket8363
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 985 (Matter of Natasha M. v. James H.) 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
Matter of Natasha M. v. James H., 2019 NY Slip Op 985 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Matter of Natasha M. v James H. (2019 NY Slip Op 00985)
Matter of Natasha M. v James H.
2019 NY Slip Op 00985
Decided on February 7, 2019
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 7, 2019
Sweeny, J.P., Tom, Webber, Kahn, Kern, JJ.

8363

[*1]In re Natasha M., Petitioner-Appellant,

v

James H., Respondent-Respondent.


Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant.

Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, for respondent.



Order, Family Court, New York County (J. Machelle Sweeting, J.), entered on or about January 12, 2018, which dismissed petitioner mother's petition for violation of order of support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to establish that respondent willfully violated the order of child support (see Matter of Powers v Powers , 86 NY2d 63, 69 [1995]; Family Ct Act § 454). The evidence, which included the New York City Office of Child Support Enforcement Account Statement, showed that respondent made all the payments as ordered, and that his payments actually exceeded the required monthly child support payments. Contrary to petitioner's argument that respondent willfully violated the order because he made no additional payments towards the accrued arrears, the order of support did not direct respondent to pay an additional fixed amount towards the arrears.

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 7, 2019

CLERK



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

Related

MATTER OF POWERS v. Powers
653 N.E.2d 1154 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-natasha-m-v-james-h-nyappdiv-2019.