Heyn v. Burr, 96215.
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 798 N.Y.S.2d 744,19 A.D.3d 896,2005 NY Slip Op 05351 |
| Decision Date | 23 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | 96215. |
| Parties | In the Matter of STACIA D. HEYN, Respondent, v. TIMOTHY T. BURR, Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.) |
v.
TIMOTHY T. BURR, Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.)
Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Coccoma, J.), entered June 24, 2004, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, committed respondent to the custody of the Otsego County Sheriff for a period of four months, (2) from an order of said court, entered July 6, 2004, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, found respondent in willful violation of an order of support, and (3) from an order of said court, entered August 27, 2004, which denied respondent's motion to purge him of his contempt.
CARDONA, P.J.
By the terms of a July 2001 order of Family Court, respondent was obligated to pay a certain sum to petitioner in support
of the parties' child. After issuance of the order, respondent voluntarily undertook less gainful employment to be closer to his home. Respondent unsuccessfully attempted to have his support obligation lowered on that basis.
After respondent was laid off from his new job, he began collecting unemployment insurance benefits and continued to satisfy his support obligations. However, once those benefits ended, respondent, who remained unemployed, ceased making payments to petitioner and commenced this proceeding seeking to have the child support order modified. Petitioner answered with a cross petition alleging respondent's willful violation of the aforementioned July 2001 order. Following a hearing on both petitions, a Support Magistrate issued a March 2003 order in which he dismissed respondent's application for a downward modification, found respondent in willful violation and recommended a term of incarceration. Respondent filed objections to that part of the Support Magistrate's determination which dismissed respondent's modification petition. The objections were denied by Family Court and, upon appeal, this Court affirmed (6 AD3d 781, 782-783 [2004]).
After disposition of the appeal, Family Court conducted a confirmation hearing concerning the willful violation aspect of the Support Magistrate's March 2003 order. Thereafter, the court issued two orders in which it confirmed the Support Magistrate's willful violation finding and committed respondent to the custody of the Otsego County Sheriff on intermittent weekends for a period of four months. After serving two weekends of his incarceration, respondent moved to purge himself of the commitment order, but said motion was denied by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arcuri v. Kirkland
...original complaints are not supported by substantial evidence. His petition is thus dismissed as academic ( cf. Matter of Heyn v. Burr, 19 A.D.3d 896, 899, 798 N.Y.S.2d 744 [2005]; Guglielmo v. Unanue, 244 A.D.2d 718, 723, 664 N.Y.S.2d 662 [1997] ). ADJUDGED that the petition and cross peti......
-
In the Matter of Alan Lerman v. Haines
...demonstrate inability to pay ( see Matter of Williams v. Johnson, 56 A.D.3d 1021, 1022, 869 N.Y.S.2d 627 [2008]; Matter of Heyn v. Burr, 19 A.D.3d 896, 897–898, 798 N.Y.S.2d 744 [2005] ). Here, the father—a busy gastroenterologist whose annual income at the time of the parties' divorce was ......
-
Bonneau v. Bonneau
...915 N.Y.S.2d 729 [2011] ), we find that the record supports the revocation of the suspended sentence ( compare Matter of Heyn v. Burr, 19 A.D.3d 896, 898–899, 798 N.Y.S.2d 744 [2005] ). We are unpersuaded by respondent's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Given respon......
-
Leder v. Leder
...that house. Under these circumstances, and according due deference to Family Court's credibility assessments (see Matter of Heyn v. Burr, 19 A.D.3d 896, 898, 798 N.Y.S.2d 744 [2005] ), ample evidence supports Family Court's determination that the mother willfully violated the order of suppo......