Matter of Ronda E. F. v. Leroy M. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Ronda E. F. v. Leroy M. C.

142 A.D.3d 868, 38 N.Y.S.3d 411

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 27, 2016·No. 1708·Published

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), *869 entered on or about September 18, 2014, which, upon con firm a - tion of the Support Magistrate’s finding of willfulness, sentenced respondent Leroy M.C. to incarceration for a period of four months with a purge amount set at $20,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to present credible evidence of his inability to make the required payments to provide support for the subject child (see Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 68-70 [1995]; Matter of John T. v Olethea P, 64 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2009]).

Contrary to respondent’s argument, improperly raised for the first time on appeal, the Support Magistrate did not assume the appearance of an advocate for the petitioner during the proceedings. Rather, the Magistrate fulfilled a “vital role in clarifying confusing testimony and facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial” (Matter of Carlos S., 5 AD3d 1051, 1052 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 707 [2004]).

Concur— Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Richter, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), *869 entered on or about September 18, 2014, which, upon con firm a - tion of the Support Magistrate’s finding of willfulness, sentenced respondent Leroy M.C. to incarceration for a period of four months with a purge amount set at $20,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to present credible evidence of his inability to make the required payments to provide support for the subject child (see Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 68-70 [1995]; Matter of John T. v Olethea P, 64 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2009]).

Contrary to respondent’s argument, improperly raised for the first time on appeal, the Support Magistrate did not assume the appearance of an advocate for the petitioner during the proceedings. Rather, the Magistrate fulfilled a “vital role in clarifying confusing testimony and facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial” (Matter of Carlos S., 5 AD3d 1051, 1052 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 707 [2004]).

Concur— Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Richter, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Matter of Ronda E. F. v. Leroy M. C., 142 A.D.3d 868, 38 N.Y.S.3d 411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

142 A.D.3d 868 (Matter of Ronda E. F. v. Leroy M. C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related