Zielazny v. Zielazny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zielazny v. Zielazny

271 A.D.2d 539, 706 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3975

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 10, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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 (Trainor, J.), entered January 14, 1997, which confirmed a determination of the same court (Lynaugh, H.E.), dated December 12, 1995, finding that he willfully failed to obey an order of the court, and thereupon committed him to a term of six months imprisonment unless he purged himself of his contempt by paying the sum of $7,500 toward child support arrears.

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

The Hearing Examiner’s finding of willfulness was supported by the record and properly confirmed by the Family Court. The father’s contention that the Family Court should have held another hearing on his ability to pay is without merit (see, Matter of Williams v Williams, 255 AD2d 387; Dariff v Moskowitz, 252 AD2d 584; Matter of Faulkner v Faulkner, 250 AD2d 767; Matter of Stone v Stone, 236 AD2d 615). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Feuerstein, 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 (Trainor, J.), entered January 14, 1997, which confirmed a determination of the same court (Lynaugh, H.E.), dated December 12, 1995, finding that he willfully failed to obey an order of the court, and thereupon committed him to a term of six months imprisonment unless he purged himself of his contempt by paying the sum of $7,500 toward child support arrears.

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

The Hearing Examiner’s finding of willfulness was supported by the record and properly confirmed by the Family Court. The father’s contention that the Family Court should have held another hearing on his ability to pay is without merit (see, Matter of Williams v Williams, 255 AD2d 387; Dariff v Moskowitz, 252 AD2d 584; Matter of Faulkner v Faulkner, 250 AD2d 767; Matter of Stone v Stone, 236 AD2d 615). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Zielazny v. Zielazny, 271 A.D.2d 539, 706 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

271 A.D.2d 539 (Zielazny v. Zielazny) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related