Matter of O'Gorman v. O'Gorman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of O'Gorman v. O'Gorman

2016 NY Slip Op 7654, 144 A.D.3d 918, 41 N.Y.S.3d 291

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

DecidedNovember 16, 2016

Docket2016-00892

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7654 (Matter of O'Gorman v. O'Gorman) 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 O'Gorman v. O'Gorman, 2016 NY Slip Op 7654, 144 A.D.3d 918, 41 N.Y.S.3d 291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the father from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Lori Currier Woods, J.), dated November 24, 2015. The order, after a hearing, inter alia, found that the father willfully violated his child support obligation set forth in an order of that court dated March 16, 2015, and committed him to the custody of the Orange County Jail for a period of 45 days unless he paid the purge amount of $2,591.42.

*919 Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as committed the father to the Orange County Jail for a period of 45 days is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of incarceration has expired (see Matter of Dezil v Garlick, 136 AD3d 904 [2016]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Proof of failure to pay child support as ordered constitutes prima facie evidence of willful violation of an order of support (see Family Ct Act § 454 [3]; Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 69-70 [1995]; Matter of Gorsky v Kessler, 79 AD3d 746 [2010]). Once a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the person who has not paid the child support to offer some competent, credible evidence of his or her inability to make the required payments (see Matter of Rottman v Coull, 112 AD3d 837, 839 [2013]).

Here, after the mother established, prima facie, that the father failed to meet his support obligation set forth in an order dated March 16, 2015, the father failed to come forward with competent, credible evidence that his failure to pay was not willful (see Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d at 69). Accordingly, the Family Court properly determined that the father willfully violated an order of child support (see Matter of Tolkinen v Siewert, 130 AD3d 837 [2015]).

The father’s remaining contentions are not properly before

this Court.

Hall, J.P., Sgroi, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the father from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Lori Currier Woods, J.), dated November 24, 2015. The order, after a hearing, inter alia, found that the father willfully violated his child support obligation set forth in an order of that court dated March 16, 2015, and committed him to the custody of the Orange County Jail for a period of 45 days unless he paid the purge amount of $2,591.42.

*919 Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as committed the father to the Orange County Jail for a period of 45 days is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of incarceration has expired (see Matter of Dezil v Garlick, 136 AD3d 904 [2016]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Proof of failure to pay child support as ordered constitutes prima facie evidence of willful violation of an order of support (see Family Ct Act § 454 [3]; Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 69-70 [1995]; Matter of Gorsky v Kessler, 79 AD3d 746 [2010]). Once a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the person who has not paid the child support to offer some competent, credible evidence of his or her inability to make the required payments (see Matter of Rottman v Coull, 112 AD3d 837, 839 [2013]).

Here, after the mother established, prima facie, that the father failed to meet his support obligation set forth in an order dated March 16, 2015, the father failed to come forward with competent, credible evidence that his failure to pay was not willful (see Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d at 69). Accordingly, the Family Court properly determined that the father willfully violated an order of child support (see Matter of Tolkinen v Siewert, 130 AD3d 837 [2015]).

The father’s remaining contentions are not properly before

this Court.

Hall, J.P., Sgroi, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7654, 144 A.D.3d 918, 41 N.Y.S.3d 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-ogorman-v-ogorman-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack