Rabasco v. Rabasco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rabasco v. Rabasco

88 A.D.2d 958, 451 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17326

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

DecidedJune 14, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 958 (Rabasco v. Rabasco) 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

Rabasco v. Rabasco, 88 A.D.2d 958, 451 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Joseph Rabasco appeals (1) in a support proceeding, from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Aldrich, J.), dated June 4, 1981, committing him to jail for a period of six months for violation of a support order and (2) in a habeas corpus proceeding, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Isseks, J.), dated September 8, 1981, which dismissed the proceeding. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and contempt petition dismissed. The findings of fact have not been considered. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, petition granted and the Sheriff of Orange County is directed to discharge appellant from custody. Petitioner concedes that the father was not given the notice and warning required by subdivision (b) of section 453 of the Family Court Act. Accordingly, the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to order the father’s commitment (see Matter of Ellis v Ellis, 85 AD2d 602). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gulotta and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— Joseph Rabasco appeals (1) in a support proceeding, from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Aldrich, J.), dated June 4, 1981, committing him to jail for a period of six months for violation of a support order and (2) in a habeas corpus proceeding, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Isseks, J.), dated September 8, 1981, which dismissed the proceeding. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and contempt petition dismissed. The findings of fact have not been considered. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, petition granted and the Sheriff of Orange County is directed to discharge appellant from custody. Petitioner concedes that the father was not given the notice and warning required by subdivision (b) of section 453 of the Family Court Act. Accordingly, the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to order the father’s commitment (see Matter of Ellis v Ellis, 85 AD2d 602). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gulotta and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 958, 451 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rabasco-v-rabasco-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack