State v. Ferraiuolo
| Decision Date | 17 July 1958 |
| Citation | 145 Conn. 458,144 A.2d 41 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Antonio FERRAIUOLO. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Alfonse C. Fasano, New Haven, with whom was Joseph F. Trotta, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).
Ernest H. Halstedt, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom was Richard E. Rapuano, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before DALY, C. J., and BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ.
This action was instituted by the state on a petition for an order requiring the defendant to contribute to the support of his daughter, Theresa Wyman. The petition was dated August 21, 1957, and judgment was rendered on October 10, 1957, ordering the defendant to pay $40 per month to the state toward her support. The defendant has appealed from the judgment.
The defendant has assigned error in the refusal of the court to add fourteen paragraphs of his draft finding to the finding, contending that they contain facts which were admitted or undisputed. In his brief he has pursued this claim only to the extent of claiming that the court erred in refusing to find the facts stated in six paragraphs. The court did include the fact contained in one of the suggested paragraphs. The facts contained in the other five were not admitted or undisputed. The defendant assigns error, also, in the finding of the facts contained in thirteen paragraphs of the finding. This claim is not pursued in his brief, and is therefore treated as abandoned. Stanley v. City of Hartford, 140 Conn. 643, 645, 103 A.2d 147; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., § 327.
The court found the following material facts: Theresa Wyman is the daughter of the defendant. She and her two children, Charles Wyman, Jr., who was born in 1944, and Pauline Wyman who was born in 1941, live together. The state is providing public assistance for their support in the sum of $172.50 per month. The award of that monthly sum includes an allotment of $50.10 per month for the individual needs of Theresa Wyman. The state welfare department prosecuted the liability of Theresa Wyman's husband for the support of his family. He is unable to work as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Investigations of the financial condition of legally liable relatives of public assistance recipients are made by members of the staff of the resources and reimbursement division of the state welfare department. Their findings are reduced to writing and entered in a department file. When such a relative refuses to contribute toward the support of the dependent, he is notified that a petition for an order requiring him to do so will be presented to the court. The case is prepared by members of the staff of the division. Philip Obst, a supervising investigator in the division, investigated the defendant's resources and assessed his financial ability on the basis of investigative data recorded as entries in the files of the welfare department. The defendant earned a gross wage income of $415 per month. He owned three pieces of property--his own home, a six-family house and a three-family house. The gross monthly rentals, $347.50, received by him, less monthly expenses of $145 for taxes, water and interest on mortgages, amounted to $202.50. This sum and his monthly wage, $415, totaled $617.50. From this sum a monthly tax deduction allowance of $91.60 was subtracted, leaving an adjusted monthly income of $525.90. An exempted monthly income allowance of $255 for the defendant and his wife was deducted. This left excess income amounting to $270.90. After deducting an allowance of $120.99 for 'exceptional indebtedness,' the monthly balance amounted to $149. The welfare department determined that $59, or 40 per cent of that sum, was available for contribution by the defendant for the support of his daughter. That percentage is based upon a responsibility factor of four-tenths of the sum which the department determined represented excess income. The remaining 60 per cent of the $149 was available to the defendant for the payment of marginal expenses not specifically allowed.
The trial court concluded that the defendant is liable for the support of his daughter, Theresa Wyman, and that he is able to contribute $40 per month toward her support.
The defendant claims that the commissioner of welfare is not authorized by statute to award assistance for the individual needs of Theresa Wyman as the supervising relative of her dependent children, and that there is no statutory authority for an action against a father of a supervising relative. Public Acts 1957, No. 34, § 3, which repealed § 1623d of the 1955 Cumulative Supplement, provides: * * *' Public Act No. 34 took effect on July 1, 1957. Section 1445d of the 1955 Cumulative Supplement provides: 'When any person who is a recipient of public assistance from the state has a * * * father * * * who is able to provide all or part of such person's support but neglects or refuses to do so, the court of common pleas may make and enforce such orders for payment by any such relative for support of such public assistance recipient as said court shall find to be reasonably commensurate with the financial ability of such relative, considering the number and condition of others dependent upon him. * * *' The assistance awarded for the individual needs of Theresa Wyman, a supervising relative, was authorized by § 3 of Public Act No. 34, and this action against her father, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crumble
...Kovacs & Co. v. Alpert, 180 Conn. 120, 429 A.2d 829 (1980); State v. Paulette, 158 Conn. 22, 255 A.2d 855 (1969); State v. Ferraiuolo, 145 Conn. 458, 144 A.2d 41 (1958). The question that I believe must be resolved is whether in this case the credentials of the witness were sufficient to al......
-
National Broadcasting Co. v. Rose
...testimony as to the contents of the records. Manfredi v. United Aircraft Corporation, 138 Conn. 23, 25, 81 A.2d 448; State v. Ferraiuolo, 145 Conn. 458, 464, 144 A.2d 41. In the fourth ruling the court sustained an objection to the admissibility of part of the file of an insurance company i......
-
State v. Masse
...910; Manfredi v. United Aircraft Corporation, 138 Conn. 23, 81 A.2d 448; McCarthy v. Maxon, 134 Conn. 170, 55 A.2d 912; State v. Ferraiuolo, 145 Conn. 458, 144 A.2d 41; Sheary v. Hallock's of Middletown, Inc., 149 Conn. 188, 177 A.2d 680. The statute is to be liberally construed, with a vie......
-
State v. Palozie
...that the report was a welfare department report or investigation did not affect its admissibility under the statute. State v. Ferraiuolo, 145 Conn. 458, 464, 144 A.2d 41. The defendant does not contest the admissibility of the report in these grounds but has briefed his objection on the gro......