Desroches v. Desroches
| Decision Date | 06 May 1965 |
| Citation | 259 N.Y.S.2d 57,23 A.D.2d 903 |
| Parties | Lorraine DESROCHES, Appellant, v. John DESROCHES, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Hercsa & Scott, Kevin Whalen, Camillus, for appellant.
Borst, Smith, O'Loughlin, Smith & Abbey, H. Richard Lewis, Schenectady, for respondent.
Before GIBSON, P. J., and REYNOLDS, TAYLOR, AULISI and HAMM, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term which vacated a prior order of the same court adjudging the respondent husband guilty of contempt, constituted by his willful disobedience of the provision of a judgment of divorce entered in 1961 in Schenectady County, Directing weekly payments by the husband for the support of his children; the Special Term decision stating that plaintiff has not denied the assertion that she petitioned the Family Court of Schenectady County 'for the purpose of obtaining from defendant payments due under the divorce decree' and that the Family Court 'has jurisdiction of this support proceeding and * * * that the matter should be heard in that Court where it is now pending.' The appeal came to us in a procedural snarl of some complexity (see, e. g., 23 A.D.2d 601, 256 N.Y.S.2d 575) and upon a record which is not completely informative; but it now sufficiently that appellant first instituted a proceeding in the Family Court, by petition made explicitly 'pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Support of Dependents Law of the State of New York' [Domestic Relations Law, §§ 30-43; Family Court Act, § 411 et seq.], the petition containing no reference to the divorce judgment (cf. Form 4-26, Forms of the Family Court of the State of New York, per Rule 2.2 of the Rules of the Family Court) and demanding 'an order for support directed to said Respondent compelling him to furnish such support as shall be deemed fair and reasonable'. About three weeks after respondent's appearance, in obedience to a summons, in the Family Court in Sechenectady, appellant commenced this contempt proceeding in the Supreme Court.
Of course, the basic jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to enforce its own decrees in this area survived the creation of the Family Court. (N.Y.Const. art. 6, §§ 7, 13[b]; Family Court Act, §§ 114, 466[b].) The decree of the Supreme Court may itself provide, however, for its enforcement or modification only by the Family Court. (Family Court Act, § 466[a].) If the decree does not, pursuant to subdivision (a), delegate to the Family Court exclusive jurisdiction, or does not, pursuant to subdivision (b), proscribe the exercise of any jurisdiction by the Family Court, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldstein v. Shapiro
...40 A.D.2d 588, 334 N.Y.S.2d 589; Matter of Althea Butts "MM" v. Donald Melvin "MM", 39 A.D.2d 995, 333 N.Y.S.2d 581; Desroches v. Desroches, 23 A.D.2d 903, 259 N.Y.S.2d 57; Matter of Rockland County Dept. of Social Servs. [DeCarlo] v. DeCarlo, 146 Misc.2d 184, 549 N.Y.S.2d 898; Matter of Ti......
- Hill v. Severn
-
Gilda G. v. Joseph G.
...subdivision (c) Family Court Act. (Anonymous v. Anonymous, 51 Misc.2d 603, 273 N.Y.S.2d 655 (Bx.Co.Fam.Ct.1966); See Desroches v. Desroches, 23 A.D.2d 903, 259 N.Y.S.2d 57 (Third Dept. With regard to Respondent's second point, this court granted the motion to the extent that it dismissed th......
-
Anonymous v. Anonymous
...the provision there is different from the one involved in Section 466, the principle involved is the same. In Desroches v. Desroches, 23 A.D.2d 903, 259 N.Y.S.2d 57 (3rd Dept.), the Appellate Division, again only by implication, indicates that the Family Court would have jurisdiction to enf......