Chenango County Support Collection Unit on Behalf of Mersereau v. DeBrie
| Decision Date | 08 March 1984 |
| Citation | 100 A.D.2d 687,473 N.Y.S.2d 890 |
| Parties | In the Matter of CHENANGO COUNTY SUPPORT COLLECTION UNIT, on Behalf of Carolan (DeBrie) MERSEREAU, Respondent, v. James C. DeBRIE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Vitanza, Shabus & Fertig, Greene (James H. Fertig, Greene, of counsel), for appellant.
Carolan Mersereau, pro se.
Before KANE, J.P., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of Family Court of Chenango County, entered September 8, 1983, which directed respondent to continue paying support and found him in willful violation of a prior support order.
Respondent and his former wife separated pursuant to a separation agreement entered into on March 11, 1983. By the terms of that agreement, the wife agreed to relieve respondent of any obligation to support her after March 31, 1983 and respondent agreed to pay her $80 a week for the support of their 16-year-old daughter, who would continue in the custody of her mother. Within a matter of a few days after executing the agreement, respondent voluntarily terminated his employment for which he was being paid approximately $35,000 annually. Since then, he has attempted to operate a self-owned business which, according to his statement of net worth dated August 8, 1983, produced income in the amount of $832 during the five-month period preceding the hearing.
The wife petitioned Family Court for enforcement of the child support provision which had been incorporated into a prior Family Court order. Respondent petitioned for complete relief from the order or for a modification thereof because of his alleged lack of funds with which to comply. After a hearing, Family Court determined that respondent was in arrears to the extent of $400 and that the violation was willful. The court ordered that payment of the arrearage be held in abeyance, suspended all payments until September 2, 1983, and modified the prior order by reducing the weekly payments to $30 for the period from September 2, 1983 until December 2, 1983, at which time the $80 weekly payment provision was to be reinstated.
It is significant that the reasons stated by respondent for the voluntary termination of his previous employment were nebulous and certainly insufficient to justify placing his daughter in jeopardy. There was no evidence indicating any disability on the part of respondent which prevented him from obtaining and carrying out adequately...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Polite v. Polite
...S.Ct. 357, 50 L.Ed.2d 310; Kay v. Kay, 37 N.Y.2d 632, 637, 376 N.Y.S.2d 443, 339 N.E.2d 143; Matter of Chenango County Support Collection Unit v. De Brie, 100 A.D.2d 687, 688, 473 N.Y.S.2d 890; Matter of Doscher v. Doscher, 80 A.D.2d 945, 438 N.Y.S.2d 28; Matter of Garfield v. Garfield, 29 ......
-
Creem v. Creem
...of the child and the respective means and future earning capacities of the parties (see, Matter of Chenango County Support Collection Unit v. De Brie, 100 A.D.2d 687, 473 N.Y.S.2d 890; Jeanne M. v. Richard G., supra). In this case, the record fully supports the court's factual findings conc......
-
Pancaldo v. Pancaldo
...hearing, the Hearing Examiner concluded that respondent had voluntarily reduced his income (see, Matter of Chenango County Support Collection Unit v. De Brie, 100 A.D.2d 687, 473 N.Y.S.2d 890). Family Court, however, concluded that regardless of whether respondent had voluntarily reduced hi......
-
Villota v. Zelenak
...but rather by his ability to provide (see, Creem v. Creem, 121 A.D.2d 676, 504 N.Y.S.2d 444; Matter of Chenango County Support Collection Unit v. De Brie, 100 A.D.2d 687, 473 N.Y.S.2d 890). A person's salaried employment and real estate holdings are prima facie proof of the ability to pay a......