N. L. v. S.L.
| Decision Date | 12 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Dkt. No. F05630-11/12B,Case No. 2020-01884,12336 |
| Citation | 136 N.Y.S.3d 233,188 A.D.3d 491 |
| Parties | In re N. L., Petitioner- Appellant, v. S.L., Respondent- Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
188 A.D.3d 491
136 N.Y.S.3d 233
In re N. L., Petitioner- Appellant,
v.
S.L., Respondent- Respondent.
12336
Dkt. No. F05630-11/12B
Case No. 2020-01884
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
ENTERED: November 12, 2020
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York (Rene Kathawala of counsel), for appellant.
Advocate, LLP, New York (Jason Advocate of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Gesmer, Kern, Kennedy, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Valerie A. Pels, J.) entered on or about February 3, 2020, which denied petitioner-mother's objections to the findings of fact and recommendation, after a hearing, of the same court (Kevin Mahoney, S.M.), entered on or about November 15, 2019, insofar as they determined that the father was in willful violation of a child support
obligation and (1) recommended incarceration, subject to confirmation by a Family Court judge, which could be vacated by payment of a purge amount of $84,000.00, and (2) which did not set a schedule for payment of the child support arrears, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded for consideration of the mother's objections on the merits.
The parties were never married and have one child together, who was born in 2005. On or about March 20, 2012, the Family Court entered an order of child support, which required, among other things, that the father pay $7,600 per month in child support and awarded retroactive support of $83,953.88.
On December 5, 2012, the mother filed a violation petition, asserting that the father had willfully violated the 2012 child support order, because he made no support payments and no payments toward the arrears. A willfulness hearing commenced on or about December 23, 2013. However, for various reasons, including the retirement of the first two support magistrates who presided over the matter, and the father's default and later successful motion to vacate his default, the mother's petition was not decided until nearly seven years later, on or about November 15, 2019.
On or about December 2, 2013, while that proceeding was pending, the Support Magistrate issued a money judgment against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liu v. Ruiz
...her fees and that the petition was improperly dismissed as moot.This matter was before us once before, in Matter of N.L. v. S.L., 188 A.D.3d 491, 136 N.Y.S.3d 233 (1st Dept. 2020). According to the factual recitation in that decision, in March 2012 respondent father was ordered to pay month......
-
Liu v. Ruiz
...by another Family Court judge in lieu of an order of commitment, and thus denied the objections as not properly before the court (188 A.D.3d at 492). The appealed, and this Court reversed and remanded the matter for consideration of the mother's objections on the merits. On February 5, 2020......