Mazzilli v. Mazzilli

248 A.D.2d 474, 668 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2267
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 9, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 474 (Mazzilli v. Mazzilli) 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
Mazzilli v. Mazzilli, 248 A.D.2d 474, 668 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated May 6, 1996, which, upon a determination of the Hearing Examiner (Panepinto, H. E.) dated November 17, 1995, found him in willful violation of an order of support and, upon his failure to purge himself of the contempt, committed him to jail for a period of three months.

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

The Family Court properly relied upon the determination of the Hearing Examiner, who was in an unique position to hear and observe the witnesses, and whose determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless no fair interpretation of the evidence can support the findings (see, Matter of Reed v Reed, 240 AD2d 951; Matter of Stone v Stone, 236 AD2d 615; Matter of Stanziano v Stanziano, 235 AD2d 845). The evidence showed that the father’s alleged financial inability to comply with the support order was a fabrication, and was contradicted, inter [475]*475alia, by the comfortable lifestyle he led with his girlfriend, the mother’s unrebutted testimony of a questionable transfer of real property to his family for a consideration of $10, the “loss” of his video business due to market forces when another viable video store operates in its place, and his receipt of unreported income from several sources (see, Stempler v Stempler, 233 AD2d 435; Matter of Fierro v Fierro, 211 AD2d 676, 677-679).

The father’s claims of his search for employment were largely unsubstantiated or refer to efforts that lacked diligence.

Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ceballos v. Castillo
85 A.D.3d 1161 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Cable v. Hill
1 A.D.2d 434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Britton v. Britton
292 A.D.2d 825 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Fallon v. Fallon
286 A.D.2d 389 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Leslie H. v. Antonio C.
264 A.D.2d 735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Ahrem v. Cattell
254 A.D.2d 352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Cattell v. Cattell
254 A.D.2d 357 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Dariff v. Moskowitz
252 A.D.2d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 A.D.2d 474, 668 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazzilli-v-mazzilli-nyappdiv-1998.