Rjeoutski v. Mavrina

• Decision Date: 21 November 2012
• Citation: 955 N.Y.S.2d 95,100 A.D.3d 908,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08018
• Parties: In the Matter of Valentin RJEOUTSKI, respondent, v. Irina MAVRINA, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

100 A.D.3d 908

955 N.Y.S.2d 95

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08018

In the Matter of Valentin RJEOUTSKI, respondent,

v.Irina MAVRINA, appellant.

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

Nov. 21, 2012.

Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Edwards, J.), entered November 14, 2011, which, upon an order of the same court (Miklitsch, S.M.), dated July 28, 2011, made after a hearing, inter alia, finding that she willfully violated a child support order dated April 6, 2009, confirmed the finding of willfulness and sentenced her to a term of 180 days in the Rockland County Jail unless she purged her contempt by paying the sum of $1,690.

ORDERED that the order entered November 14, 2011, is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof sentencing the mother to a term of 180 days in the Rockland County Jail, and substituting therefor a provision sentencing her to a term of 30 days in the Rockland County Jail; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Rockland County, for the issuance of an order of commitment in accordance herewith.

Upon the establishment of a prima facie case that the mother willfully violated a child support order dated April 6, 2009 ( seeFamily Court Act § 454[3][a]; Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 69, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154;Matter of Kainth v. Kainth, 36 A.D.3d 915, 916, 829 N.Y.S.2d 580;Matter of Teller v. Tubbs, 34 A.D.3d 593, 593, 824 N.Y.S.2d 387), the burden then shifted to the mother to offer competent, credible evidence of her inability to comply with that order ( see Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d at 69, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154;Matter of Kainth v. Kainth, 36 A.D.3d at 916, 829 N.Y.S.2d 580;Matter of Teller v. Tubbs, 34 A.D.3d at 593–594, 824 N.Y.S.2d 387). Contrary to the mother's contention, the Support Magistrate properly determined that she failed to meet that burden ( see Matter of Teller v. Tubbs, 34 A.D.3d at 593–594, 824 N.Y.S.2d 387;Matter of Fallon v. Fallon, 286 A.D.2d 389, 389, 728 N.Y.S.2d 725;Matter of Reed v. Reed, 240 A.D.2d 951, 952, 659 N.Y.S.2d 334;cf. Matter of Kainth v. Kainth, 36 A.D.3d...