Williams v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Williams

230 A.D.2d 916, 646 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8660

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 26, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Richard Williams appeals from a dispositional order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated October 8, 1993, which, upon a determination after a fact-finding hearing finding that the appellant was in violation of an order of protection of the same court, committed him to the custody of the Department of Corrections for 60 days.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant husband’s contention that the Family Court erred in failing to require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt” is rejected. Proceedings under the Family Court Act are essentially civil in nature (see, Family Ct Act § 165) and civil contempt proceedings permit a sentence of imprisonment where appropriate (see, Judiciary Law § 753). Further, the proceeding here was one which sought to vindicate the respondent wife’s private rights. Thus, it was appropriate under the circumstances of this case to require the lesser evidentiary standard of "clear and convincing” evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 846-a; Addington v Texas, 441 US 418). In any event, the respondent’s unrefuted testimony established the appellant’s violation of the September 14, 1993, order of protection "beyond a reasonable doubt”, even if no inference was to be drawn from the appellant’s failure to testify.

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit.

Mangano, P. J., Miller, Sullivan and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Richard Williams appeals from a dispositional order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated October 8, 1993, which, upon a determination after a fact-finding hearing finding that the appellant was in violation of an order of protection of the same court, committed him to the custody of the Department of Corrections for 60 days.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant husband’s contention that the Family Court erred in failing to require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt” is rejected. Proceedings under the Family Court Act are essentially civil in nature (see, Family Ct Act § 165) and civil contempt proceedings permit a sentence of imprisonment where appropriate (see, Judiciary Law § 753). Further, the proceeding here was one which sought to vindicate the respondent wife’s private rights. Thus, it was appropriate under the circumstances of this case to require the lesser evidentiary standard of "clear and convincing” evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 846-a; Addington v Texas, 441 US 418). In any event, the respondent’s unrefuted testimony established the appellant’s violation of the September 14, 1993, order of protection "beyond a reasonable doubt”, even if no inference was to be drawn from the appellant’s failure to testify.

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit.

Mangano, P. J., Miller, Sullivan and Florio, JJ., concur.

Williams v. Williams, 230 A.D.2d 916, 646 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

230 A.D.2d 916 (Williams v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related