Kimbrough v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 06 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | 2016–01365,2016–01366,Docket No. U–38888–04/13B |
| Citation | 156 A.D.3d 640,66 N.Y.S.3d 288 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Adair Chloe KIMBROUGH, etc., respondent, v. Arkeen Jamel MURPHY, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Austin I. Idehen, Jamaica, NY, for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Megan E.K. Montcalm of counsel), for respondent.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Scott A. Eisman of counsel), appearing pursuant Executive Law § 71 (no brief filed).
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P. SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX JOSEPH J. MALTESE ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the father (1) from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Dean T. Kusakabe, J.), dated January 27, 2016, and (2) an order of that court, also dated January 27, 2016. The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, in effect, confirmed an order of that court (Israella Mayeri, S.M.), dated March 4, 2014, made after a hearing, finding that the father had willfully violated a prior order of child support and, inter alia, directed that the father be committed to the County jail for a period of 6 months, suspended for a period of 12 months on the condition that the father pay the sum of $381per month. The order directed the entry of a money judgment in favor of the mother and against the father in the principal sum of $3,837 for child support arrears.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
This proceeding sought a determination that the father willfully violated a child support order. After a hearing, a Support Magistrate found that the father had willfully violated the child support order, and recommended that he be incarcerated.
The Family Court, in effect, confirmed the Support Magistrate's finding of willfulness and directed that the father be committed to the County jail for a period of 6 months, suspended for a period of 12 months on the condition that he pay the sum of $381 per month, comprising his basic monthly child support obligation of $254 plus $127 toward arrears. Judgments for child support arrears previously had been entered against the father in amounts totaling $34,268.85, inclusive of interest. The Family Court directed the entry of a money judgment in favor of the mother and against the father in the principal sum of $3,837 for additional child support arrears. The father appeals from the Family Court's order of disposition and order directing the entry of a money judgment.
The father's appeal from the order directing the entry of a money judgment must be dismissed as abandoned, as he does not seek reversal of any portion of that order in his brief (see Matter ofPepe v. Pepe, 124 A.D.3d 898, 998 N.Y.S.2d 897).
The petitioner presented prima facie evidence of the father's willful violation of the child support order with proof that the father failed to pay child support as ordered (see Family Ct Act § 454[3][a] ; Matter ofKretkowski v. Pasqua, 147 A.D.3d 836, 837, 47 N.Y.S.3d 347). Account statements from the Special Collections Unit indicated that the father had paid only $2,695.71 toward his ongoing basic child support obligation since 2009, out of $14,478, and that he had not paid any support for the child since November 2012 (see Matter of Saintime v. Saint Surin, 40 A.D.3d 1103, 1104, 838 N.Y.S.2d 580 ). The burden of going forward then shifted to the father to rebut the petitioner's prima facie showing of a willful violation by offering some competent, credible evidence of his inability to pay (see Matter ofPowers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 69–70, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154; Matter ofRafferty v. Ettinger, 150 A.D.3d 1016, 55 N.Y.S.3d 145 ; Matter ofRojas–Paredes v. Lewis, 149 A.D.3d 844, 51 N.Y.S.3d 601 ; Matter ofMyles v. Turner, 137 A.D.3d 1038, 1039, 26 N.Y.S.3d 609). The father...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jacobs v. Cartalemi, 2016–05041
-
Admin. for Children's Servs. v. Theresa M. (In re Damani B.)
...Court Act § 1089(a)(3) as well as her due process rights are not preserved for appellate review (see generally Matter of Kimbrough v. Murphy , 156 A.D.3d 640, 66 N.Y.S.3d 288 ; Matter of Lavon S., 153 A.D.3d 526, 61 N.Y.S.3d 37 ), and we decline to consider them under the circumstances of t......
-
Nickel v. Nickel
...order was not willful (see Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d at 69–70, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154 ; Matter of Kimbrough v. Murphy, 156 A.D.3d 640, 641, 66 N.Y.S.3d 288 ; Matter of Rafferty v. Ettinger, 150 A.D.3d 1016, 1016, 55 N.Y.S.3d 145 ). The father failed to satisfy his bur......
-
Brady v. White
...order was not willful (see Matter ofPowers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d at 69, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154 ; Matter of Kimbrough v. Murphy, 156 A.D.3d 640, 641, 66 N.Y.S.3d 288 ; Matter of Rafferty v. Ettinger, 150 A.D.3d 1016, 1016, 55 N.Y.S.3d 145 ). The father failed to satisfy his burden ......