Ouimet v. Ouimet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ouimet v. Ouimet

193 A.D.2d 1099, 598 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5736

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

DecidedMay 28, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 1099 (Ouimet v. Ouimet) 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

Ouimet v. Ouimet, 193 A.D.2d 1099, 598 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

SOrder unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The Hearing Examiner determined that respondent had willfully violated Family Court’s child support order but concluded that respondent could not be penalized for that violation because he had not been given the statutory warning notice (see, Family Ct Act § 453 [b]). We reject respondent’s contention that the finding of a willful violation was not supported by sufficient evidence. The record supports the Hearing Examiner’s determination that respondent had the resources to make the required child support payments but that he chose instead to apply his funds elsewhere, in disregard of the court’s order and his daughter’s welfare.

Respondent also contends that it was a denial of his right of due process for the Hearing Examiner to entertain the violation petition while deferring respondent’s petition for modification of the prior child support order. Respondent did not raise that contention in his objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order, thereby failing to exhaust Family Court procedures. That contention, therefore, is beyond the scope of appellate review (see, Matter of O’Leary v O’Leary, 139 AD2d 744; Matter of Werner v Werner, 130 AD2d 754; see also, Family Ct Act § 439 [e]). (Appeal from Order of Oswego County Family Court, Roman, J.—Child Support.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

SOrder unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The Hearing Examiner determined that respondent had willfully violated Family Court’s child support order but concluded that respondent could not be penalized for that violation because he had not been given the statutory warning notice (see, Family Ct Act § 453 [b]). We reject respondent’s contention that the finding of a willful violation was not supported by sufficient evidence. The record supports the Hearing Examiner’s determination that respondent had the resources to make the required child support payments but that he chose instead to apply his funds elsewhere, in disregard of the court’s order and his daughter’s welfare.

Respondent also contends that it was a denial of his right of due process for the Hearing Examiner to entertain the violation petition while deferring respondent’s petition for modification of the prior child support order. Respondent did not raise that contention in his objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order, thereby failing to exhaust Family Court procedures. That contention, therefore, is beyond the scope of appellate review (see, Matter of O’Leary v O’Leary, 139 AD2d 744; Matter of Werner v Werner, 130 AD2d 754; see also, Family Ct Act § 439 [e]). (Appeal from Order of Oswego County Family Court, Roman, J.—Child Support.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 1099, 598 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ouimet-v-ouimet-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack