Kasprowicz v. Osgood

Decision Date28 December 2012
PartiesIn the Matter of Ashlea KASPROWICZ, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Kristopher Osgood, Respondent–Appellant. In the Matter of Kristopher Osgood, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Ashlea Kasprowicz, Respondent–Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

101 A.D.3d 1760
956 N.Y.S.2d 786
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 09245

In the Matter of Ashlea KASPROWICZ, Petitioner–Respondent,
v.
Kristopher Osgood, Respondent–Appellant.

In the Matter of Kristopher Osgood, Petitioner–Appellant,
v.
Ashlea Kasprowicz, Respondent–Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Dec. 28, 2012.


[956 N.Y.S.2d 787]


Kathleen P. Reardon, Rochester, for Respondent–Appellant and Petitioner–Appellant.

Carolyn Kellogg Jonas, Wellsville, for Petitioner–Respondent and Respondent–Respondent.


PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

[101 A.D.3d 1761]Respondent-petitioner father appeals from an order confirming the finding of the Support Magistrate that he willfully violated an order of child support. We affirm ( see Matter of Christine L.M. v. Wlodek K., 45 A.D.3d 1452, 1452, 846 N.Y.S.2d 849;Matter of Hunt v. Hunt, 30 A.D.3d 1065, 1065, 815 N.Y.S.2d 866). There is a presumption that a parent has sufficient means to support his or her minor children ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 437; Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 68–69, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154;Hunt, 30 A.D.3d at 1065, 815 N.Y.S.2d 866), and the evidence that the father failed to pay support as ordered constitutes “prima facie evidence of a willful violation” (§ 454 [3][a] ). The burden then shifted to the father to present “some competent, credible evidence of his inability to make the required payments” ( Powers, 86 N.Y.2d at 70, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154;see Hunt, 30 A.D.3d at 1065, 815 N.Y.S.2d 866). The Support Magistrate, who was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses ( see Matter of Natali v. Natali, 30 A.D.3d 1010, 1011–1012, 815 N.Y.S.2d 841), determined that the father was not credible and did not make reasonable efforts to obtain employment ( see Christine L.M., 45 A.D.3d at 1452–1453, 846 N.Y.S.2d 849;Hunt, 30 A.D.3d at 1065, 815 N.Y.S.2d 866), and “[g]reat deference should be given to the determination of the Support Magistrate” ( Matter of Yamonaco v. Fey, 91 A.D.3d 1322, 1323, 937 N.Y.S.2d 787,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 803, 2012 WL 1538619;see Matter of Manocchio v. Manocchio, 16 A.D.3d 1126, 1128, 792 N.Y.S.2d 279). We note in any event that Family Court properly granted the relief sought in the violation petition based on the father's failure to submit a financial disclosure statement ( see § 424–a [b] ). The father's contention that the court erred in failing to cap his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Roshia v. Thiel
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 4 Octubre 2013
    ...to evaluate the father's credibility, and her determination is entitled to great deference ( see Matter of Kasprowicz v. Osgood, 101 A.D.3d 1760, 1761, 956 N.Y.S.2d 786,lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 863, 965 N.Y.S.2d 82, 987 N.E.2d 643). The father raises no contentions on appeal with respect to the ......
  • Forrestel v. Jonkman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 24 Marzo 2017
    ...comments at issue (see Matter of Davis v. Davis, 197 A.D.2d 622, 623, 602 N.Y.S.2d 672 ; see generally Matter of Kasprowicz v. Osgood, 101 A.D.3d 1760, 1762, 956 N.Y.S.2d 786, lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 863, 2013 WL 1235503 ), and that the court "was within its discretion in refusing to recuse it......
  • Jordan v. Reed, 606
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 22 Agosto 2019
    ...326 ( Matter of Davis v. Williams, 133 A.D.3d 1354, 1355, 19 N.Y.S.3d 458 [4th Dept. 2015] ; see Matter of Kasprowicz v. Osgood, 101 A.D.3d 1760, 1761, 956 N.Y.S.2d 786 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 863, 2013 WL 1235503 [2013] ; Turner, 99 A.D.3d at 1245, 951 N.Y.S.2d 814 ).Finally,......
  • Wayne Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. ex rel. Jackson v. Loren, 1548
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 16 Marzo 2018
    ...position to evaluate the mother's credibility, and her determination is entitled to great deference (see Matter of Kasprowicz v. Osgood, 101 A.D.3d 1760, 1761, 956 N.Y.S.2d 786 [4th Dept. 2012], lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 863, 2013 WL 1235503 [2013] ). Furthermore, the record establishes that the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT