Meyerhoff v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyerhoff v. Brown

207 A.D.2d 1018, 617 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10306

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 1018 (Meyerhoff v. Brown) 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

Meyerhoff v. Brown, 207 A.D.2d 1018, 617 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly found that respondent willfully violated the order of support incorporated in the parties’ judgment of divorce (see, Family Ct Act § 454; Matter of D’Angelo v D’Angelo, 57 AD2d 1042). Respondent contended that petitioner frustrated his efforts to obtain payments from his health insurance carrier and therefore his violation of the support order was not "willful”. The record supports the court’s resolution of that issue.

The issue concerning attorney’s fees is not properly before us because that part of the order appealed from is not final (see, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Staley v Staley, 134 AD2d 911). Finally, we have reviewed the remaining issues raised by respondent and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Hedges, J.— Child Support.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly found that respondent willfully violated the order of support incorporated in the parties’ judgment of divorce (see, Family Ct Act § 454; Matter of D’Angelo v D’Angelo, 57 AD2d 1042). Respondent contended that petitioner frustrated his efforts to obtain payments from his health insurance carrier and therefore his violation of the support order was not "willful”. The record supports the court’s resolution of that issue.

The issue concerning attorney’s fees is not properly before us because that part of the order appealed from is not final (see, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Staley v Staley, 134 AD2d 911). Finally, we have reviewed the remaining issues raised by respondent and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Hedges, J.— Child Support.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 1018, 617 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyerhoff-v-brown-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack