Rube v. Tornheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rube v. Tornheim

82 A.D.3d 1246, 919 N.Y.2d 364

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1246 (Rube v. Tornheim) 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

Rube v. Tornheim, 82 A.D.3d 1246, 919 N.Y.2d 364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Where a willful violation of an order of support is found, the determination as to what sanction to impose lies within the Family Court’s discretion (see Matter of Gorsky v Kessler, 79 AD3d 746, 747 [2010]; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Rosen, 289 AD2d 487, 489 [2001]). Here, upon confirming the Support Magistrate’s finding that the father willfully violated a prior order of support, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the father to purge his sentence of incarceration by posting an undertaking in the sum of only $3,000 with the support collection unit by a date certain (see Provencal-Dayle v Dayle, 50 AD3d 502, 503 [2008]; Matter of Russo v Goldbaum, 215 AD2d 763, 764 [1995]).

[1247]*1247The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.E, Hall, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Where a willful violation of an order of support is found, the determination as to what sanction to impose lies within the Family Court’s discretion (see Matter of Gorsky v Kessler, 79 AD3d 746, 747 [2010]; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Rosen, 289 AD2d 487, 489 [2001]). Here, upon confirming the Support Magistrate’s finding that the father willfully violated a prior order of support, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the father to purge his sentence of incarceration by posting an undertaking in the sum of only $3,000 with the support collection unit by a date certain (see Provencal-Dayle v Dayle, 50 AD3d 502, 503 [2008]; Matter of Russo v Goldbaum, 215 AD2d 763, 764 [1995]).

[1247]*1247The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.E, Hall, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1246, 919 N.Y.2d 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rube-v-tornheim-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack