Wolski v. Carlson

309 A.D.2d 759, 765 N.Y.S.2d 277
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 6, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 759 (Wolski v. Carlson) 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
Wolski v. Carlson, 309 A.D.2d 759, 765 N.Y.S.2d 277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Nassau County (Foskey, J.), dated March 22, 2002, as committed him to the Nassau County Jail for a period of six months for his wilful violation of an order of support of the same court dated March 22, 2001, and, upon the suspension of the commitment on the condition that he continue to pay his child support obligation, directed that an execution of commitment would issue upon his default.

Ordered that the order of disposition is modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, by (1) deleting the provision thereof committing James Carlson to the Nassau County Jail for a period of six months and substituting therefor a provision committing James Carlson to the Nassau County Jail for a period of 30 days, and (2) deleting the provision thereof that, upon the suspension of the commitment, directed that an execution of commitment would issue upon James Carlson’s default, and substituting therefor a provision that upon James Carlson’s default, Debra M. Wolski may apply to the Family Court, Nassau County, upon notice to James Carlson, for revocation of the suspension; as so modified, the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Although the Family Court has the discretion to suspend an order of commitment upon the condition of continued compliance with a prior order of support (see Family Ct Act § 455 [1]; Matter of Russo v Goldbaum, 215 AD2d 763 [1995]), the Family Court may not direct that the suspension be automatically revoked without notice and without a hearing upon failure to abide by the condition (see Matter of Rogers v Rogers, 77 AD2d 818 [1980]; Matter of Bailey v Bailey, 34 AD2d 984 [1970]; see also Matter of Ontario County Dept. of Social Servs. [Reilly] v Hinckley, 226 AD2d 1126 [1996]; Matter of Rosa v Borowski, 101 AD2d 668 [1984]). However, the mother may apply to the Family Court, Nassau County, upon notice to the father, to revoke the suspension in the event that the father fails to comply with the court-ordered condition (see Matter of Bailey v Bailey, supra).

Under the circumstances of this case, a shorter period of commitment is more appropriate. Smith, J.P., Townes, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Madison County Support Collection Unit v. Campbell
2018 NY Slip Op 4049 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
In re Isaiah M.
144 A.D.3d 1450 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Rjeoutski v. Mavrina
100 A.D.3d 908 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Conlon v. Kortz
86 A.D.3d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Probert v. Probert
67 A.D.3d 806 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
DeVries v. DeVries
59 A.D.3d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Thompson v. Thompson
59 A.D.3d 1104 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
309 A.D.2d 759, 765 N.Y.S.2d 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolski-v-carlson-nyappdiv-2003.