Riccio v. Paquette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Riccio v. Paquette

284 A.D.2d 335, 725 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5621

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

DecidedJune 4, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 335 (Riccio v. Paquette) 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

Riccio v. Paquette, 284 A.D.2d 335, 725 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lehman, J.), dated July 12, 2000, which, in effect, confirmed a determination of the same court (Lynaugh, H.E.), dated July 3, 2000, that he had willfully failed to obey an order of the same court, dated June 8, 1990, and thereupon committed him to a term of incarceration of 120 days, unless he purged himself of his contempt by paying the principal sum of $7,004 toward child support arrears.

Ordered that the order dated July 12, 2000, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing and determination in accordance herewith.

In the absence of proof of an ability to pay, an order of commitment for willful violation of a support order may not stand (see, Family Ct Act § 455 [5]; Matter of Roth v Bowman, 245 AD2d 521; Matter of Abbondola v Abbondola, 40 AD2d 976). Here, the record fails to support a finding that the father’s ability to pay was fully explored at the hearing. The Family Court’s order of commitment was therefore improperly made. Accordingly, a new hearing is necessary to determine the father’s ability to pay, Santucci, J. P., Florio, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lehman, J.), dated July 12, 2000, which, in effect, confirmed a determination of the same court (Lynaugh, H.E.), dated July 3, 2000, that he had willfully failed to obey an order of the same court, dated June 8, 1990, and thereupon committed him to a term of incarceration of 120 days, unless he purged himself of his contempt by paying the principal sum of $7,004 toward child support arrears.

Ordered that the order dated July 12, 2000, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing and determination in accordance herewith.

In the absence of proof of an ability to pay, an order of commitment for willful violation of a support order may not stand (see, Family Ct Act § 455 [5]; Matter of Roth v Bowman, 245 AD2d 521; Matter of Abbondola v Abbondola, 40 AD2d 976). Here, the record fails to support a finding that the father’s ability to pay was fully explored at the hearing. The Family Court’s order of commitment was therefore improperly made. Accordingly, a new hearing is necessary to determine the father’s ability to pay, Santucci, J. P., Florio, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 335, 725 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riccio-v-paquette-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack