Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) subdivisions (d) (g) and (i) and Family Court Act § 413 (1) subdivisions (d) (g) and (i) amended by Laws of 2011, Ch 436, effective November 15, 2011
In Rose v Moody, 83 NY2d 65 (1993) the Court of Appeals held Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) and Family Court Act § 413 (1) unconstitutional insofar as they imposed an inflexible minimum child support obligation against support obligors whose income would, by virtue of the obligation, fall below the poverty level. The Court of Appeals held that that the irrebuttable presumption mandating that an indigent, non-custodial parent be ordered to pay a minimum of $25 per month in child support contravened the Federal Child Support Enforcement Act Social Security Act, Title IV-D §467(b)(2), as amended, 42 USCA §667(b)(2), thus violating the constitutional principle of Federal preemption. While the effect of the Court's ruling has been to require that support obligors be permitted to rebut the presumption in favor of a minimum obligation of $25 per month, the statutory language had not been conformed accordingly. Additionally, in cases where the basic child support obligation would reduce the non-custodial parent's income to a level below the self-support reserve, but not below the poverty level, both subdivisions provide alternative standards for determining child support, that is, the greater of $50 per month or the difference between the non-custodial parents' income and the self-support reserve. However, both statutes are silent regarding whether separate amounts may also be ordered in such cases for child care, future medical and educational expenses, in accordance with subparagraphs four, five, six and seven of paragraph (c) of both subdivision one of section 413 of the Family Court Act and subdivision (1-b) of section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law. Several cases have, therefore, disallowed the inclusion of any of these expenses as part of the child support order in such circumstances. See Callen v Callen, 287 AD2d 818 ( 3rd Dept 2001); In Re Rhianna R., 256 AD2d 1184 (4th Dept 1998) (citing Matter of Cary)(Mahady) v Megrell, 219 AD2d 334 (3rd Dept 1996), Iv App Dismissed, 88 NY2d 1065 1996); Dunbar v. Dunbar, 233 AD2d 922 ( 4th Dept 1996.) (See NY Legis Memo 436 (2011).
Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) and Family Court Act § 413 (1) were amended by Laws of 2011, Ch 436 to correct these anomalies and to codify the decision in Rose v Moody.
The amendments make the presumption in favor of a minimum order of $25 per month rebuttable by a showing that such an order would be unjust or inappropriate, based upon the ten factors applicable to departures from the child support standards set forth in Domestic Relations Law §240(1-b)(f); Family Court Act 413(1)(f). Family Court and Supreme Court are authorized to order payment of an amount it deems to be just and appropriate. The amendment eliminates the proviso that " in no instance shall the court order child support below $25 per month." The amendment also clarifies that in cases where imposition of the basic child support obligation would reduce the non-custodial parent's income to an amount below the self-support reserve, but not the poverty level, the Court would be authorized, although not required, to direct payments for child care, educational and health care expenses, as part of its child support order.
Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b), subdivisions (d) (g) and (i) were amended accordingly. In addition, subdivision (i) was amended to make technical corrections , including deleting “social services” and replacing it with “the office of temporary and disability assistance”.
Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b), paragraphs (d), (g) and (i) were amended to read as follows:
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c) of this subdivision, where the annual amount of the basic child support obligation would reduce the non-custodial parent's income below the poverty income guidelines amount for a single person as reported by the federal department of health and human services, the basic child support obligation shall be twenty-five dollars per month, provided, however, that if the court finds that such basic child support obligation is unjust or inappropriate, which finding shall be based upon considerations of the factors set forth in paragraph (f) of this subdivision, the court shall order the non-custodial parent to pay such amount of the child support as the court finds just and appropriate. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c) of this subdivision, where the annual amount of the basic child support obligation would reduce the non-custodial parent's income below the self-support reserve but not below the poverty income guidelines amount for a single person as reported by the federal department of health and human services, the basic child support obligation shall be fifty dollars per month or the difference between the non-custodial parent's income and the self-support reserve, whichever is greater, in addition to any amounts that the court may, in its discretion, order in accordance with subparagraphs four, five, six and/or seven of paragraph (c) of this subdivision.
(g) Where the court finds that the non-custodial parent's pro rata share of the basic child support obligation is unjust or inappropriate, the court shall order the non-custodial parent to pay such amount of child support as the court finds just and appropriate, and the court shall set forth, in a written order, the factors it considered; the amount of each party's pro rata share of the basic child support obligation; and the reasons that the court did not order the basic child support obligation. Such written order may not be waived by either party or counsel; provided, however, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not find that the non-custodial parent's pro rata share of such obligation is unjust or inappropriate on the basis that such share exceeds the portion of a public assistance grant which is attributable to a child or children. Where the non-custodial parent's income is less than or equal to the poverty income guidelines amount for a single person as reported by the federal department of health and human services, unpaid child support arrears in excess of five hundred dollars shall not accrue.
(i) Where either or both parties are unrepresented, the court shall not enter an order or judgment other than a temporary order pursuant to section two hundred thirty-seven of this article, that includes a provision for child support unless the unrepresented party or parties have received a copy of the child support standards chart promulgated by the commissioner of the office of temporary and disability assistance pursuant to subdivision two of section one hundred eleven-i of the social services law. Where either party is in receipt of child support enforcement services through the local social services district, the local social services district child support enforcement unit shall advise such party of the amount derived from application of the child support percentage and that such amount serves as a starting point for the determination of the child support award, and shall provide such party with a copy of the child support standards chart. (Laws of 2011, Ch 436, §1, effective November 15, 2011)
Almost identical amendments were made to Family Court Act , § 413 (1), paragraphs (d), (g) and (i). (Laws of 2011, Ch 436, §2, effective November 15, 2011)
Second Department Holds That Counsel Fees May Be Requested under FCA 438 (a) At Any Time until the Appellate Process Has Concluded
In Talty v Talty--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 3715407 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), a support proceeding, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed an order of the Family Court which had vacated a counsel fee award of $11,893.04 and reinstated the award. It observed that Family Court Act § 438(a) provides: "[i]n any proceeding under this article, including proceedings for support of a spouse and children, or for support of children only, or at any hearing to modify or enforce an order entered in that proceeding or a proceeding to modify a decree of divorce, separation, or annulment, including an appeal under article eleven, the court may allow counsel fees at any stage of the proceeding, to the attorney representing the spouse, former spouse or person on behalf of children." It construed the language "[i]n any proceeding under this article" to include "an appeal under article eleven" , and held that the plain meaning of the statute supports the interpretation that a request for an attorney's fee can be made "at any stage of the proceeding," which includes "an appeal under article eleven". In this context, therefore, the "proceeding" does not conclude until the appellate process has concluded. The proceeding is terminated when an appeal has concluded and no more appellate relief is available, or when the time to file an appeal has expired. Applying this interpretation of the statute to the facts of this case, it held that the mother's motion for an award of an additional attorney's fee was timely, as the appellate process had not yet concluded at the time the motion was made. It further held that to the extent that any of its decisions suggested otherwise (citing Matter of McGrath v. Parker, 41 AD3d 852; Matter of Cassieri v. Cassieri, 31 A.D.2d 927, 298 N.Y.S.2d 844), they are no longer to be followed.
“Extraordinary Circumstances Analysis” must Consider "The Cumulative Effect" of All Issues Present in a Given Case and Not View Each Factor in Isolation. Custody Awarded to Non-biological Relative of Child Rather than Father
In Matter of Pettaway v Savage, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 3611215 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), Eric Pettaway was the father of a daughter (born in 1997). In 2003, he and the child's mother, Denise Knight, now deceased, stipulated to joint legal custody of the child with primary physical custody to the mother and visitation to the father. The child resided with the mother and the child's two half siblings until the mother's death in June 2009, at which time the father commenced proceeding No. 1, seeking custody. In response, the attorney for the child moved by order to show cause for an award of sole legal and physical custody to William Savage II, also known as Eric Savage. Savage was not a biological relative of the child; he was the father of the child's older half sister and had fostered a close relationship with the child over the course of several years. Savage then commenced proceeding No. 2, also seeking custody of the child. Family Court found the existence of extraordinary circumstances sufficient to permit the court to intervene in the father's relationship with the child and then, further, that the child's best interests would be served by an award of sole custody to Savage. The father, was granted visitation on alternate weekends and such additional periods of time as the parties and the child may agree. The Appellate Division affirmed. It noted that extraordinary circumstances may not be established "merely by showing that the child has bonded psychologically with the nonparent". The extraordinary circumstances analysis must consider "the cumulative effect" of all issues present in a given case and not view each factor in isolation. In prior cases, extraordinary circumstances have been established based upon the combined effect of factors, including the child's psychological bonding and attachments, the prior disruption of the parent's custody, separation from siblings and potential harm to the child, as well as the parent's neglect or abdication of responsibilities and the child's poor relationship with the parent (see Matter of Banks v. Banks, 285 A.D.2d 686, 687 [2001] ). In Matter of Banks v. Bank, a case in which there were a number of significant similarities to this one, the children--at the time of their father's death--had already developed a bond with his second wife after living with the couple for approximately 30 months. The Appellate Division reversed Family Court's award of custody to the biological mother, citing as extraordinary circumstances the death of the father, the "poor relationship" between the children and the mother, bereavement needs and other special issues affecting one of the children and the mother's recent "withdrawal as a parent". Each and all of those factors were present here; as in Banks, one of the child's parents was deceased, the child had formed a strong psychological bond with a nonparent, the child had special needs in addition to psychological needs resulting from bereavement, and the parent seeking custody withdrew almost completely from the parental role for an extended period before the other parent's death. Here, Family Court found that, prior to the mother's death, the father failed to play any significant role in the child's life, visited inconsistently throughout the child's life, and failed to attend to the child's emotional needs. The court credited a psychologist's testimony and opinion that the father had emotionally abandoned the child by his neglect of her and had demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of her needs. These findings were fully supported by the record. Family Court's conclusion that the father abdicated his parental responsibilities was supported by the testimony of several witnesses that the father frequently missed scheduled visits with the child and often left the child with other adults even when he did pick her up for visits, and by undisputed testimony that the father did not attend the child's school conferences or special education meetings until after the mother's death, did not know her teachers' names and never helped her with homework, although he testified that he knew she needed special assistance. Even while this matter was pending, the father failed to appear for a scheduled meeting with the child's teacher and guidance counselor, for reasons unexplained. Testimony further revealed that the father had failed to provide for the child's basic needs during her time with him--he had not provided her with enough food during past visits, nor did he supply her with essentials such as soap or deodorant. When the child sustained an injury while performing physical work for the father's brother, neither the father nor his brother furnished appropriate medical care. There was further disturbing testimony--which Family Court found to be credible--that the father knew that his brother had "badgered" the child about her desire to live with Savage, and that the brother had threatened the child that his conduct should not be mentioned in court; despite this knowledge, the father did not intervene or seek to protect the child. Family Court also found that the period in which the father had custody of the child after the mother's death "did not go well," noting that during this vulnerable period, the child felt isolated from her other family contacts and had limited interaction with them--at a time when any responsible parent or caretaker should have readily recognized that such support was essential. The court had ample basis for doubting the father's testimony that he would not relocate with the child to New Jersey, where his new wife resided and owned a growing travel business, finding it instead "extremely unlikely" that the father would foster the close relationship between the child and her sister and "the others [who] have become her true family." The court further found that the father lacked credibility regarding his previous conviction for attempted rape in the third degree of a person under 17, and his failure to complete sex offender treatment thereafter.
Error to Allow Wife to Benefit from Her Failure to Comply with Discovery
In Cabral v Cabral, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 3600503 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the parties were married on January 24, 1980, and had three children, born in 1980, 1982, and 1989. During the marriage, the parties purchased the marital residence in Westchester County, as well as a vacation residence in the Dominican Republic. Beginning in 1983, the defendant was employed by Westchester County, in which position she received a salary and accrued pension benefits. In 1986, the plaintiff obtained an insurance license and opened an agency selling insurance policies and providing financial and other services. The plaintiff was incarcerated from 1991 to 1994 upon his conviction of felony drug charges, and his insurance license was revoked. The plaintiff testified at trial that prior to his incarceration, he liquidated a retirement benefit and used the proceeds to provide a source of income to the defendant and the parties' children. The defendant continued operation of the agency during the plaintiff's incarceration, and during that time federal tax liens were levied against the agency. The plaintiff also testified that after he was released from prison, the defendant refused to allow him to return to work at the agency in any capacity. Thereafter, the plaintiff did obtain full-time employment, albeit at an annual salary which was significantly less than what he earned as an insurance broker. In 2001, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce. Due to the defendant's failure to comply with pretrial discovery orders, she was precluded from offering evidence at trial on the issue of equitable distribution. Supreme Court equitably distributed marital property and awarded child support, and the wife appealed. The Appellate Division, 35 A.D.3d 779, 826 N.Y.S.2d 443, reversed and remitted. On remittal, the Supreme Court awarded child support arrears, awarded the husband no share of the wife's pension, directed that he be solely responsible for the federal tax lien assessed on parties' business, and directed him to pay child support. The husband appealed and the Appellate Division reversed insofar as appealed from and remitted. It held that Supreme Court erred in failing to include the defendant's income from the insurance agency in calculating her income or assets, thereby allowing her to benefit from her failure to comply with discovery and shielding her insofar as the income related to equitable distribution. The defendant's income was also improperly omitted in the calculation of child support and in the apportionment of the debt incurred by the parties' insurance agency. It found that Supreme Court should have included the defendant's pension benefits which accrued prior to the commencement date of the action in the equitable distribution of marital property. Finally, under the particular circumstances of this case, and in the absence of any evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff had the ability to earn a salary approaching his previous income, the Supreme Court improperly imputed annual income to him of $85,000 as part of its calculation of child support.
Inquest on Papers to Determine the Amount of Restitution Is Permitted Pursuant to Family Court Act 841(e)
In Polanco v Dilone,--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 3557068 (N.Y.Fam.Ct.) Petitioner moved for summary judgment on her petition for an order of protection based on Mr. Dilone's guilty plea in Bronx Criminal Court to assault in the 3rd degree. On December 2, 2010, the court granted the motion, and issued findings of fact and a 5 year order of protection. The court also directed an inquest on papers to determine the amount of restitution. It observed that pursuant to Family Court Act 841(e), restitution is an available remedy in this case. Petitioner submitted an affidavit, dated December 15, 2010, delineating her expenses: Travel by Subway to prosecute this case: $78.50 Destroyed toys, bottle of perfume and bouquet of flowers: $100 Certificate of disposition: $10. There was no evidence that respondent was ordered to pay restitution in the criminal action and thus this order was not duplicative. Respondent failed to file opposition which was due by January 21, 2011. The Family Court observed that under FCA 834, the standard of proof at a dispostional hearing is material and relevant. Petitioner submitted a receipt for the certificate of disposition which established the $10 expense. Petitioner's travel expenses were also sufficiently documented in that her appearances in court were in the court's file and would necessitate trips to meet with her attorney, the detective and District Attorney. Further, petitioner testified to injuries for which medical treatment was documented and thus those travel expenses were supported by the record as well. However, petitioner did not allege in the petition that she suffered property damage. Since petitioner moved for summary judgment based on the criminal proceedings, there was no testimony here about property damage. The criminal disposition was silent as to property damage as well. In addition, there was no documentary evidence for the $100 for destroyed property. Admittedly, $100 was an estimate for items of sentimental value. While the court is authorized to award nominal damages, it cannot award sentimental value. Furlan v. Rayan Phot Works, Inc., 171 Misc. 839 (Mun Ct, Queens County 1939). The court accepted petitioner's credible testimony that the intrinsic value of the toys, perfume, and flowers was $100. Victoria C v. Higinio C., 1 AD3d 173 (1st Dept 2003). However, petitioner was required to first plead and prove property damage before any damages could be awarded. Therefore, petitioner had established damages in the amount of $88.50. The court granted the petition for restitution and directed that petitioner shall have judgment for $88.50 with interest from September 24, 2009. The clerk was directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Important New Decisions - July 27, 2011
Third Department Holds That While Plaintiff Lacked a Remedy at Law, the Dissolution of a Civil Union Falls Squarely Within the Scope of Supreme Court's Broad Equity Jurisdiction
In Dickerson v Thompson, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2899241 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) Plaintiff and defendant, residents of New York, entered into a civil union in Vermont in April 2003. In November 2007, plaintiff, unable to obtain a dissolution of the civil union in Vermont due to that state's residency requirements commenced an action for equitable and declaratory relief seeking a judgment dissolving the civil union and freeing her of all the rights and responsibilities incident to that union. Upon defendant's
default, plaintiff moved for a judgment granting the requested relief. Supreme Court, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the complaint (73 A.D.3d 52 [2010] [ Dickerson I ] ), holding that the courts of this state may recognize the civil union status of the parties as a matter of comity and that Supreme Court is vested with subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. It did not, however, reach the issue as to what relief, if any, could ultimately be afforded to the parties on the merits. Upon remittal, Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion seeking a declaration relieving the parties from all rights and obligations arising from the civil union, but denied that portion of the motion seeking a dissolution of the union. The Appellate Division modified, disagreeing with Supreme Court's conclusion that, in the absence of any
legislatively created mechanism in New York by which a court could grant the
dissolution of a civil union entered into in another state, it was powerless to grant the requested relief. It held that while plaintiff lacked a remedy at law, the dissolution of a civil union falls squarely within the scope of Supreme Court's broad equity jurisdiction. As it noted in Dickerson I, the N.Y. Constitution vests Supreme Court with "general original jurisdiction in law and equity" (N.Y. Const, art VI, s 7[a] ). " 'The power of equity is as broad as equity and justice require' ". Indeed, "[t]he essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power ... to [mold] each decree to the necessities of the particular case" (State of New York v. Barone, 74 N.Y.2d 332, 336 [1989]. Thus, once a court of equity has obtained jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, as Supreme Court had here, it has the power to dispose of all matters at issue and to grant complete relief in accordance with the equities of the case. In other words, even in the absence of any direct grant of legislative power, Supreme Court has the "inherent authority ... to fashion whatever remedies are required for the resolution of justiciable disputes and the protection of the rights of citizens," tempered only by our Constitution and statutes. It found that the exercise of Supreme Court's equitable powers to grant a dissolution of the civil union was clearly warranted here. Plaintiff was in need of a judicial remedy to dissolve her legal relationship with defendant created by the laws of Vermont. Residency requirements prevent her from obtaining a dissolution of the civil union in Vermont, and the provisions of Domestic Relations Law 170,
which provide for divorce and dissolution of a marriage, were not applicable to this action since the parties did not enter into a marriage in Vermont. Thus, absent Supreme Court's invocation of its equitable power to dissolve the civil union, there would be no court competent to provide plaintiff the requested relief and she would therefore be left without a remedy. A court of equity "withholds its remedies if the result would be unjust, but freely grants them to prevent injustice when the other courts are helpless". Here, the uncontested evidence submitted by plaintiff established that, during the course of the parties' relationship, defendant had subjected her to violent physical abuse on several occasions and was verbally abusive to both her and her autistic son on a daily basis. Defendant also stole from her, resulting in defendant's criminal conviction of grand larceny, and removed the license plates from plaintiff's vehicle to prevent her and her son from escaping defendant's abusive conduct. Furthermore, the parties have lived apart since April 2006 and
plaintiff had alleged facts demonstrating that resumption of the civil union is not probable. Since plaintiff would be entitled to a dissolution of the civil union in Vermont but for that state's residency requirement (see Vt Stat Ann, tit 15, s 551[3], [7]; ss 592, 1206), the Court found that equity would be served by granting her the requested relief and that Supreme Court erred in declining to invoke its equitable powers to do so. Furthermore, notwithstanding Supreme Court's declaration freeing the parties from the rights and obligations flowing from the civil union, the fact remained that, in the absence of a judgment granting a dissolution, plaintiff and defendant continued to be interminably bound as partners to the union. Given this legal status, plaintiff was precluded from entering into another civil union or a marriage in Vermont as well as analogous relationships in several other jurisdictions. Supreme Court's denial of the requested dissolution also barred the parties from enjoying the more limited protections available to domestic partners under certain locals laws of this state, including New York City's Domestic Partnership Law, which forbids parties to a civil union from entering into a domestic partnership with another (see City of N.Y. Administrative Code s 3-241).
Disposition Based Almost Entirely upon Proof That Court Elicited Is Expressly Disapproved. Function of the Judge is to Protect the Record at Trial, Not to Make It.
In Matter of Kyle FF, 926 N.Y.S.2d 196 (3 Dept, 2011) in August 2010, respondent (born in 1995) appeared in Family Court and admitted to committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree. At the dispositional hearing that followed, the parties stipulated to the admission of the predispositional report, which recommended, among other things, that respondent be placed on probation for two years subject to various special conditions. Although the parties asked that Family Court accept that recommendation and indicated that they intended to offer no further proof in this regard, Family Court called as its own witness the author of the report and questioned her extensively regarding respondent's prior admission to the local hospital's mental health unit and a subsequent mental health evaluation conducted by the Northeast Parent & Child Society. In response to this testimony, Family Court then indicated that it would not close the proof until it obtained the corresponding records for respondent's admission/evaluation and stated its intent to issue subpoenas to that effect. Following additional discussion, Family Court agreed to accept the discharge summary from respondent's hospital admission and closed the proof. Thereafter, relying almost exclusively upon proof that it elicited, Family Court ordered that respondent be placed with
the Office of Children and Family Services until August 31, 2011. The Appellate Division held that Family Court improperly assumed a prosecutorial role by eliciting testimonial and documentary evidence at the dispositional hearing. Although respondent did not object when Family Court called the author of the predispositional report as a witness and, further, stipulated to the admission of the discharge summary, thereby rendering this issue unpreserved for review it exercised its discretion and
reversed Family Court's order. The Appellate Division observed that Family Court is vested with the discretion to call witnesses, including the author of the predispositional report (see Family Ct. Act 350.4[2] ), and may assume "a more active role in the presentation of evidence in order to clarify a confusing issue or to avoid misleading the trier of fact" (People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67[2002] ). However, "[t]he overarching principle restraining the court's discretion [in this regard] is that it is the function of the judge to protect the record at trial, not to make it" and the court must take care to avoid assuming "the function or appearance of an advocate" (Matter of Yadiel Roque C., 17 A.D.3d at 1169). Here, even though the parties agreed with the recommendation made by the Probation Department, Family Court called and extensively questioned the author of the predispositional report, secured the production of additional documentary evidence and then, according essentially no weight to the underlying recommendation and the parties' expressed wishes, crafted a disposition based almost entirely upon proof that it elicited-a practice with which this Court previously had expressed its disapproval (see Matter of Keaghn Y., 921 N.Y.S.2d at 739; Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 A.D.3d 1454, 1455 [2010]; Matter of Stampfler v. Snow, 290 A.D.2d 595, 596[2002]). Accordingly, Family Court's order was reversed and, as respondent's placement had not yet expired, this matter was remitted for a new dispositional hearing before a different judge.
In Dickerson v Thompson, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2899241 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) Plaintiff and defendant, residents of New York, entered into a civil union in Vermont in April 2003. In November 2007, plaintiff, unable to obtain a dissolution of the civil union in Vermont due to that state's residency requirements commenced an action for equitable and declaratory relief seeking a judgment dissolving the civil union and freeing her of all the rights and responsibilities incident to that union. Upon defendant's
default, plaintiff moved for a judgment granting the requested relief. Supreme Court, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the complaint (73 A.D.3d 52 [2010] [ Dickerson I ] ), holding that the courts of this state may recognize the civil union status of the parties as a matter of comity and that Supreme Court is vested with subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. It did not, however, reach the issue as to what relief, if any, could ultimately be afforded to the parties on the merits. Upon remittal, Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion seeking a declaration relieving the parties from all rights and obligations arising from the civil union, but denied that portion of the motion seeking a dissolution of the union. The Appellate Division modified, disagreeing with Supreme Court's conclusion that, in the absence of any
legislatively created mechanism in New York by which a court could grant the
dissolution of a civil union entered into in another state, it was powerless to grant the requested relief. It held that while plaintiff lacked a remedy at law, the dissolution of a civil union falls squarely within the scope of Supreme Court's broad equity jurisdiction. As it noted in Dickerson I, the N.Y. Constitution vests Supreme Court with "general original jurisdiction in law and equity" (N.Y. Const, art VI, s 7[a] ). " 'The power of equity is as broad as equity and justice require' ". Indeed, "[t]he essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power ... to [mold] each decree to the necessities of the particular case" (State of New York v. Barone, 74 N.Y.2d 332, 336 [1989]. Thus, once a court of equity has obtained jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, as Supreme Court had here, it has the power to dispose of all matters at issue and to grant complete relief in accordance with the equities of the case. In other words, even in the absence of any direct grant of legislative power, Supreme Court has the "inherent authority ... to fashion whatever remedies are required for the resolution of justiciable disputes and the protection of the rights of citizens," tempered only by our Constitution and statutes. It found that the exercise of Supreme Court's equitable powers to grant a dissolution of the civil union was clearly warranted here. Plaintiff was in need of a judicial remedy to dissolve her legal relationship with defendant created by the laws of Vermont. Residency requirements prevent her from obtaining a dissolution of the civil union in Vermont, and the provisions of Domestic Relations Law 170,
which provide for divorce and dissolution of a marriage, were not applicable to this action since the parties did not enter into a marriage in Vermont. Thus, absent Supreme Court's invocation of its equitable power to dissolve the civil union, there would be no court competent to provide plaintiff the requested relief and she would therefore be left without a remedy. A court of equity "withholds its remedies if the result would be unjust, but freely grants them to prevent injustice when the other courts are helpless". Here, the uncontested evidence submitted by plaintiff established that, during the course of the parties' relationship, defendant had subjected her to violent physical abuse on several occasions and was verbally abusive to both her and her autistic son on a daily basis. Defendant also stole from her, resulting in defendant's criminal conviction of grand larceny, and removed the license plates from plaintiff's vehicle to prevent her and her son from escaping defendant's abusive conduct. Furthermore, the parties have lived apart since April 2006 and
plaintiff had alleged facts demonstrating that resumption of the civil union is not probable. Since plaintiff would be entitled to a dissolution of the civil union in Vermont but for that state's residency requirement (see Vt Stat Ann, tit 15, s 551[3], [7]; ss 592, 1206), the Court found that equity would be served by granting her the requested relief and that Supreme Court erred in declining to invoke its equitable powers to do so. Furthermore, notwithstanding Supreme Court's declaration freeing the parties from the rights and obligations flowing from the civil union, the fact remained that, in the absence of a judgment granting a dissolution, plaintiff and defendant continued to be interminably bound as partners to the union. Given this legal status, plaintiff was precluded from entering into another civil union or a marriage in Vermont as well as analogous relationships in several other jurisdictions. Supreme Court's denial of the requested dissolution also barred the parties from enjoying the more limited protections available to domestic partners under certain locals laws of this state, including New York City's Domestic Partnership Law, which forbids parties to a civil union from entering into a domestic partnership with another (see City of N.Y. Administrative Code s 3-241).
Disposition Based Almost Entirely upon Proof That Court Elicited Is Expressly Disapproved. Function of the Judge is to Protect the Record at Trial, Not to Make It.
In Matter of Kyle FF, 926 N.Y.S.2d 196 (3 Dept, 2011) in August 2010, respondent (born in 1995) appeared in Family Court and admitted to committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree. At the dispositional hearing that followed, the parties stipulated to the admission of the predispositional report, which recommended, among other things, that respondent be placed on probation for two years subject to various special conditions. Although the parties asked that Family Court accept that recommendation and indicated that they intended to offer no further proof in this regard, Family Court called as its own witness the author of the report and questioned her extensively regarding respondent's prior admission to the local hospital's mental health unit and a subsequent mental health evaluation conducted by the Northeast Parent & Child Society. In response to this testimony, Family Court then indicated that it would not close the proof until it obtained the corresponding records for respondent's admission/evaluation and stated its intent to issue subpoenas to that effect. Following additional discussion, Family Court agreed to accept the discharge summary from respondent's hospital admission and closed the proof. Thereafter, relying almost exclusively upon proof that it elicited, Family Court ordered that respondent be placed with
the Office of Children and Family Services until August 31, 2011. The Appellate Division held that Family Court improperly assumed a prosecutorial role by eliciting testimonial and documentary evidence at the dispositional hearing. Although respondent did not object when Family Court called the author of the predispositional report as a witness and, further, stipulated to the admission of the discharge summary, thereby rendering this issue unpreserved for review it exercised its discretion and
reversed Family Court's order. The Appellate Division observed that Family Court is vested with the discretion to call witnesses, including the author of the predispositional report (see Family Ct. Act 350.4[2] ), and may assume "a more active role in the presentation of evidence in order to clarify a confusing issue or to avoid misleading the trier of fact" (People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67[2002] ). However, "[t]he overarching principle restraining the court's discretion [in this regard] is that it is the function of the judge to protect the record at trial, not to make it" and the court must take care to avoid assuming "the function or appearance of an advocate" (Matter of Yadiel Roque C., 17 A.D.3d at 1169). Here, even though the parties agreed with the recommendation made by the Probation Department, Family Court called and extensively questioned the author of the predispositional report, secured the production of additional documentary evidence and then, according essentially no weight to the underlying recommendation and the parties' expressed wishes, crafted a disposition based almost entirely upon proof that it elicited-a practice with which this Court previously had expressed its disapproval (see Matter of Keaghn Y., 921 N.Y.S.2d at 739; Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 A.D.3d 1454, 1455 [2010]; Matter of Stampfler v. Snow, 290 A.D.2d 595, 596[2002]). Accordingly, Family Court's order was reversed and, as respondent's placement had not yet expired, this matter was remitted for a new dispositional hearing before a different judge.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Important New Decisions - July 20, 2011
Costs of After-school Program and Summer Camp Qualify as Child Care Expenses.
In Matter of Scarduzio v Ryan, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2714203 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division observed that the party seeking modification of a support order has the burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification. A change in the expenses for the child may constitute such a change in circumstances . It was undisputed that the child care expenses had decreased significantly since the order of support had been issued, due to the child attending school full time. It held that the father should only be required to pay his share of the child care expenses actually incurred by the mother commencing January 7, 2010, the date that the father filed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation . It rejected the father's argument that the costs of the after-school program and summer camp in which the child was enrolled did not qualify as child care expenses. The father offered no evidence to refute the mother's contention that these programs provided care for the child while she was at work. Accordingly, those programs qualified as child care expenses consistent with the purpose of Family Court Act 413(1)(c)(4).
An Evidentiary Ruling, Even When Made in Advance of a Trial on Motion Papers, Is Not Appealable
In Matter of Lyons v Lyons, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2714210 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) The Appellate Divison ruled that the appeal from so much of the order dated August 9, 2010, as denied the motion of Audrey Lyons to preclude the testimony of a court-appointed forensic evaluator at a hearing to be held on the issue of custody and to preclude the use of that evaluator's report at the hearing must be dismissed because it concerned an evidentiary ruling, which, even when made in advance of a hearing or trial on motion papers, is not appealable as of right or by permission.
Order Based upon Reports and Trial Testimony of Psychologists Which Made Reference to Statements about Respondent Attributed to Other Witnesses Who Did Not Testify at Trial, or Was Otherwise Qualified for Admission Pursuant to a Recognized Exception to the Rule Against Hearsay, Is Reversible Hearsay.
In Matter of Anthony WW, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2637279 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) Family Court ultimately terminated respondent's parental rights on the ground that he suffered from a mental illness that prevented him from providing proper care for his children. The Appellate Division reversed. It observed that at trial petitioner presented the testimony and reports of Richard Liotta and Donald Danser, both of whom were licensed psychologists who examined respondent. Respondent contended that both psychologists relied on inadmissible hearsay in preparing their reports and in arriving at their final opinions, and that since Family Court's decision terminating his parental rights was based in large measure on their reports and trial testimony, it must be reversed. Respondent argued that both psychologists, in their reports and in their trial testimony, made reference to statements about respondent attributed to other witnesses who did not testify at trial, none of which was admitted into evidence or was otherwise qualified for admission pursuant to a recognized exception to the rule against hearsay. Petitioner contended that both opinions were properly admitted and were either based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness or qualified as material of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion and were properly admitted at trial. Danser testified that, in forming his opinion, he relied on his interview with respondent, as well as the results of various psychological tests that he performed on him. Danser also reviewed records that petitioner had on file regarding respondent, including case, progress and supervision notes, all of which were compiled during a four-year period beginning in 2003, as well as documents describing mental health treatment that respondent received during this time period. While Danser did not testify that this evidence was commonly relied upon in his profession to perform such an evaluation, Family Court determined that it was proper for him to refer to it, because some of this evidence was contained in the trial testimony given by other witnesses or in records that had been properly admitted into evidence at trial. However, the court did acknowledge that some of the references in Danser's report should not have been admitted and, for that reason, directed that a section of his report, entitled "Review of Records," be stricken because it referred to evidence that had not been admitted at trial. Significantly, Danser was never asked what impact this redacted evidence had on his evaluation of respondent and what effect, if any, it had on his opinion regarding respondent's mental condition. Similar issues existed with Liotta's report and testimony, both of which were admitted into evidence at trial. When he was first retained to perform his evaluation, Liotta was provided with petitioner's complete file on respondent. Later, he was asked to return the file and then, pursuant to a court order, was provided with a limited record to review. Liotta was also directed to limit his review to the records provided and not base his evaluation on respondent's fitness as a parent on statements made by the mother about respondent or on any collateral interviews that he may have conducted with other individuals regarding respondent. However, it was clear from the content of his report, as well as his testimony at trial, that Liotta, in forming his final opinion regarding respondent's fitness as a parent, relied on observations of respondent made by his eldest son's mental health provider as well as on statements made by the mother about respondent. In addition, Liotta's interviews with respondent's caseworker and his current mental heath therapist were referenced in his report and obviously played a role in the opinion that he ultimately offered regarding respondent's mental illness and its impact on his ability to be a parent. Like Danser, Liotta was never asked if this evidence was normally relied on within his profession as appropriate for the performance of such an evaluation and, while some of it was redacted, including any reference to his interview with the mental health therapist, Liotta was never
asked what impact this evidence had in formulating his final opinion as to
respondent's fitness as a parent. As a result, a proper foundation was not laid for the admission of the testimony of either psychologist or their reports. Without this evidence, Family Court's determination that respondent suffered from a mental illness that affected his ability to provide for his children was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. In footnotes the court pointed out that a redacted version of respondent's records from 2005 through 2007 was admitted into evidence at the trial. It also noted that Danser's evaluation focused on respondent's ability to function and contained recommendations for treatment. It was not performed for the specific purpose of determining whether respondent had the ability to provide an acceptable level of care for his children and, for that reason alone, should not have been admitted into evidence (see Social Services Law 384-b).
A Party May Be Held in Contempt for Their Subsequent Violation of an Oral Order or Directive, Issued in the Contemnor's Presence, Placed upon the Record and Transcribed into the Minutes of the Proceeding
In Matter of Lagano v Soule, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2637330 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), Petitioner (mother) and respondent Eric K. Taylor (father) were the biological parents of a son (born in 2002). In May 2005, respondent Linda S. Soule, the child's paternal grandmother, was granted custody of the child, and the mother was awarded specified periods of visitation. The mother commenced proceedings seeking to modify the prior award of custody and hold Soule in contempt for failing to comply with the visitation schedule. A hearing ensued as to the modification petitions in February 2006, at the conclusion of which Family Court granted the mother temporary custody of the child. The mother's attorney was instructed to prepare an order to that effect, which also was to include a directive that Soule produce the child at the next scheduled court appearance. When the matter reconvened in April 2006, Soule, who had relocated with the child out of state, appeared via telephone. Prior to adjourning the hearing due to the absence of the then attorney for the child, Judge Connerton advised Soule--repeatedly and in no uncertain terms--that she was required to produce the child on May 2, 2006, and Soule, in turn, indicated that she understood the court's directive. When Soule failed to appear or produce the child as ordered, the court awarded the mother sole legal custody with visitation to the father. After eventually locating and regaining physical custody of her son in August 2009, the mother commenced this violation proceeding against Soule and the father. Following a hearing in July 2010, Family Court upon application of the attorney for the child, dismissed the violation petition with prejudice, finding that the mother failed to establish that Soule was either served with or otherwise had knowledge of the May 2006 order. This appeal by the mother ensued and the Appellate Division found that the mother established a prima facie case of a willful violation as to Soule and, as such, Family Court erred in granting the motion to dismiss to that extent. The underlying pro se violation petition--liberally construed alleged a violation of both Judge Connerton's written May 2006 order and oral April 2006 directive, the latter of which ordered Soule to produce the child in court on May 2, 2006. Although there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Soule had actual knowledge of the written May 2006 order there was no question that she had actual knowledge of Judge Connerton's April 2006 oral directive. In this regard, it is clear that "an oral 'order' or directive, issued in the contemnor's presence, placed upon the record and transcribed into the minutes of the proceeding, may be deemed a 'mandate' ... and, hence, may form the basis for contempt" (Matter of Betancourt v. Boughton, 204 A.D.2d 804, 808 [1994] ). It was clear from a review of the April 2006 transcript, of which Family Court took judicial notice, that Soule was repeatedly and unequivocally ordered by Judge Connerton to produce the child at the May 2006 court appearance, which, despite her acknowledgment of this directive and her expressed understanding thereof, Soule thereafter failed to do. Further, Soule's defiance of this clear and lawful mandate, as well as her subsequent conduct in secreting the child's whereabouts for the ensuing three years, plainly prejudiced the mother's parental rights and, was sufficient to establish a willful violation of Judge Connerton's April 2006 order. Accordingly, the motion dismissing the violation petition against Soule was denied and the matter was remitted to Family Court for further proceedings. In a footnote the court observed that Family Court, without objection, took judicial notice of "all prior proceedings involving [the child at issue]. The mere fact that the court did so in the context of a separate Family Court proceeding involving the child was of no moment, as a court may take judicial notice of prior judicial proceedings though in a different court and involving different parties. Family Court also took judicial notice of Judge Connerton's May 2006 order.
Once a Scientific Procedure Has Been Proved Reliable, a Frye Inquiry Need Not Be Conducted Each Time Such Evidence Is Offered and Courts May Take Judicial Notice of its Reliability
In Matter of Bethany F, 925 N.Y.S.2d 737 (4 Dept, 2011) respondent father
appealed from an order that placed him under the supervision of petitioner based on a finding that he sexually abused his daughter. The Appellate Division affirmed holding that Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a Frye hearing with respect to the admissibility of validation testimony of a court-appointed mental health counselor. "Once a scientific procedure has been proved reliable, a Frye inquiry
need not be conducted each time such evidence is offered and courts may take
judicial notice of its reliability (People v. Hopkins, 46 A.D.3d 1449, 1450, 848 N.Y.S.2d 460]; see People v. LeGrand, 8 N.Y.3d 449, 458, 835 N.Y.S.2d 523, 867 N.E.2d 374). Here, the court-appointed counselor utilized the Sgroi method to interview the child and make a determination with respect to the veracity of her allegations. The Court of Appeals has cited to Dr. Sgroi's "Handbook of Clinical Intervention in Child Sexual Abuse" (see Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 120-121, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 9140, and other courts in New York State have admitted validation testimony of experts who have utilized the Sgroi method. The court-appointed counselor testified at the hearing that the Sgroi method was used by "all" counselors in the field to validate allegations of sexual abuse. Inasmuch as a Frye hearing is required only where a party seeks to introduce testimony on a novel topic (see People v. Garrow, 75
A.D.3d 849, 852, 904 N.Y.S.2d 589), and there was no indication in the record that the methods used by the court-appointed counselor to validate the allegations of sexual abuse in this case were novel, the father's motion for a Frye hearing was properly denied.
In Matter of Scarduzio v Ryan, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2714203 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division observed that the party seeking modification of a support order has the burden of establishing the existence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification. A change in the expenses for the child may constitute such a change in circumstances . It was undisputed that the child care expenses had decreased significantly since the order of support had been issued, due to the child attending school full time. It held that the father should only be required to pay his share of the child care expenses actually incurred by the mother commencing January 7, 2010, the date that the father filed his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation . It rejected the father's argument that the costs of the after-school program and summer camp in which the child was enrolled did not qualify as child care expenses. The father offered no evidence to refute the mother's contention that these programs provided care for the child while she was at work. Accordingly, those programs qualified as child care expenses consistent with the purpose of Family Court Act 413(1)(c)(4).
An Evidentiary Ruling, Even When Made in Advance of a Trial on Motion Papers, Is Not Appealable
In Matter of Lyons v Lyons, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2714210 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) The Appellate Divison ruled that the appeal from so much of the order dated August 9, 2010, as denied the motion of Audrey Lyons to preclude the testimony of a court-appointed forensic evaluator at a hearing to be held on the issue of custody and to preclude the use of that evaluator's report at the hearing must be dismissed because it concerned an evidentiary ruling, which, even when made in advance of a hearing or trial on motion papers, is not appealable as of right or by permission.
Order Based upon Reports and Trial Testimony of Psychologists Which Made Reference to Statements about Respondent Attributed to Other Witnesses Who Did Not Testify at Trial, or Was Otherwise Qualified for Admission Pursuant to a Recognized Exception to the Rule Against Hearsay, Is Reversible Hearsay.
In Matter of Anthony WW, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2637279 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) Family Court ultimately terminated respondent's parental rights on the ground that he suffered from a mental illness that prevented him from providing proper care for his children. The Appellate Division reversed. It observed that at trial petitioner presented the testimony and reports of Richard Liotta and Donald Danser, both of whom were licensed psychologists who examined respondent. Respondent contended that both psychologists relied on inadmissible hearsay in preparing their reports and in arriving at their final opinions, and that since Family Court's decision terminating his parental rights was based in large measure on their reports and trial testimony, it must be reversed. Respondent argued that both psychologists, in their reports and in their trial testimony, made reference to statements about respondent attributed to other witnesses who did not testify at trial, none of which was admitted into evidence or was otherwise qualified for admission pursuant to a recognized exception to the rule against hearsay. Petitioner contended that both opinions were properly admitted and were either based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness or qualified as material of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion and were properly admitted at trial. Danser testified that, in forming his opinion, he relied on his interview with respondent, as well as the results of various psychological tests that he performed on him. Danser also reviewed records that petitioner had on file regarding respondent, including case, progress and supervision notes, all of which were compiled during a four-year period beginning in 2003, as well as documents describing mental health treatment that respondent received during this time period. While Danser did not testify that this evidence was commonly relied upon in his profession to perform such an evaluation, Family Court determined that it was proper for him to refer to it, because some of this evidence was contained in the trial testimony given by other witnesses or in records that had been properly admitted into evidence at trial. However, the court did acknowledge that some of the references in Danser's report should not have been admitted and, for that reason, directed that a section of his report, entitled "Review of Records," be stricken because it referred to evidence that had not been admitted at trial. Significantly, Danser was never asked what impact this redacted evidence had on his evaluation of respondent and what effect, if any, it had on his opinion regarding respondent's mental condition. Similar issues existed with Liotta's report and testimony, both of which were admitted into evidence at trial. When he was first retained to perform his evaluation, Liotta was provided with petitioner's complete file on respondent. Later, he was asked to return the file and then, pursuant to a court order, was provided with a limited record to review. Liotta was also directed to limit his review to the records provided and not base his evaluation on respondent's fitness as a parent on statements made by the mother about respondent or on any collateral interviews that he may have conducted with other individuals regarding respondent. However, it was clear from the content of his report, as well as his testimony at trial, that Liotta, in forming his final opinion regarding respondent's fitness as a parent, relied on observations of respondent made by his eldest son's mental health provider as well as on statements made by the mother about respondent. In addition, Liotta's interviews with respondent's caseworker and his current mental heath therapist were referenced in his report and obviously played a role in the opinion that he ultimately offered regarding respondent's mental illness and its impact on his ability to be a parent. Like Danser, Liotta was never asked if this evidence was normally relied on within his profession as appropriate for the performance of such an evaluation and, while some of it was redacted, including any reference to his interview with the mental health therapist, Liotta was never
asked what impact this evidence had in formulating his final opinion as to
respondent's fitness as a parent. As a result, a proper foundation was not laid for the admission of the testimony of either psychologist or their reports. Without this evidence, Family Court's determination that respondent suffered from a mental illness that affected his ability to provide for his children was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. In footnotes the court pointed out that a redacted version of respondent's records from 2005 through 2007 was admitted into evidence at the trial. It also noted that Danser's evaluation focused on respondent's ability to function and contained recommendations for treatment. It was not performed for the specific purpose of determining whether respondent had the ability to provide an acceptable level of care for his children and, for that reason alone, should not have been admitted into evidence (see Social Services Law 384-b).
A Party May Be Held in Contempt for Their Subsequent Violation of an Oral Order or Directive, Issued in the Contemnor's Presence, Placed upon the Record and Transcribed into the Minutes of the Proceeding
In Matter of Lagano v Soule, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2637330 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), Petitioner (mother) and respondent Eric K. Taylor (father) were the biological parents of a son (born in 2002). In May 2005, respondent Linda S. Soule, the child's paternal grandmother, was granted custody of the child, and the mother was awarded specified periods of visitation. The mother commenced proceedings seeking to modify the prior award of custody and hold Soule in contempt for failing to comply with the visitation schedule. A hearing ensued as to the modification petitions in February 2006, at the conclusion of which Family Court granted the mother temporary custody of the child. The mother's attorney was instructed to prepare an order to that effect, which also was to include a directive that Soule produce the child at the next scheduled court appearance. When the matter reconvened in April 2006, Soule, who had relocated with the child out of state, appeared via telephone. Prior to adjourning the hearing due to the absence of the then attorney for the child, Judge Connerton advised Soule--repeatedly and in no uncertain terms--that she was required to produce the child on May 2, 2006, and Soule, in turn, indicated that she understood the court's directive. When Soule failed to appear or produce the child as ordered, the court awarded the mother sole legal custody with visitation to the father. After eventually locating and regaining physical custody of her son in August 2009, the mother commenced this violation proceeding against Soule and the father. Following a hearing in July 2010, Family Court upon application of the attorney for the child, dismissed the violation petition with prejudice, finding that the mother failed to establish that Soule was either served with or otherwise had knowledge of the May 2006 order. This appeal by the mother ensued and the Appellate Division found that the mother established a prima facie case of a willful violation as to Soule and, as such, Family Court erred in granting the motion to dismiss to that extent. The underlying pro se violation petition--liberally construed alleged a violation of both Judge Connerton's written May 2006 order and oral April 2006 directive, the latter of which ordered Soule to produce the child in court on May 2, 2006. Although there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Soule had actual knowledge of the written May 2006 order there was no question that she had actual knowledge of Judge Connerton's April 2006 oral directive. In this regard, it is clear that "an oral 'order' or directive, issued in the contemnor's presence, placed upon the record and transcribed into the minutes of the proceeding, may be deemed a 'mandate' ... and, hence, may form the basis for contempt" (Matter of Betancourt v. Boughton, 204 A.D.2d 804, 808 [1994] ). It was clear from a review of the April 2006 transcript, of which Family Court took judicial notice, that Soule was repeatedly and unequivocally ordered by Judge Connerton to produce the child at the May 2006 court appearance, which, despite her acknowledgment of this directive and her expressed understanding thereof, Soule thereafter failed to do. Further, Soule's defiance of this clear and lawful mandate, as well as her subsequent conduct in secreting the child's whereabouts for the ensuing three years, plainly prejudiced the mother's parental rights and, was sufficient to establish a willful violation of Judge Connerton's April 2006 order. Accordingly, the motion dismissing the violation petition against Soule was denied and the matter was remitted to Family Court for further proceedings. In a footnote the court observed that Family Court, without objection, took judicial notice of "all prior proceedings involving [the child at issue]. The mere fact that the court did so in the context of a separate Family Court proceeding involving the child was of no moment, as a court may take judicial notice of prior judicial proceedings though in a different court and involving different parties. Family Court also took judicial notice of Judge Connerton's May 2006 order.
Once a Scientific Procedure Has Been Proved Reliable, a Frye Inquiry Need Not Be Conducted Each Time Such Evidence Is Offered and Courts May Take Judicial Notice of its Reliability
In Matter of Bethany F, 925 N.Y.S.2d 737 (4 Dept, 2011) respondent father
appealed from an order that placed him under the supervision of petitioner based on a finding that he sexually abused his daughter. The Appellate Division affirmed holding that Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a Frye hearing with respect to the admissibility of validation testimony of a court-appointed mental health counselor. "Once a scientific procedure has been proved reliable, a Frye inquiry
need not be conducted each time such evidence is offered and courts may take
judicial notice of its reliability (People v. Hopkins, 46 A.D.3d 1449, 1450, 848 N.Y.S.2d 460]; see People v. LeGrand, 8 N.Y.3d 449, 458, 835 N.Y.S.2d 523, 867 N.E.2d 374). Here, the court-appointed counselor utilized the Sgroi method to interview the child and make a determination with respect to the veracity of her allegations. The Court of Appeals has cited to Dr. Sgroi's "Handbook of Clinical Intervention in Child Sexual Abuse" (see Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 120-121, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 9140, and other courts in New York State have admitted validation testimony of experts who have utilized the Sgroi method. The court-appointed counselor testified at the hearing that the Sgroi method was used by "all" counselors in the field to validate allegations of sexual abuse. Inasmuch as a Frye hearing is required only where a party seeks to introduce testimony on a novel topic (see People v. Garrow, 75
A.D.3d 849, 852, 904 N.Y.S.2d 589), and there was no indication in the record that the methods used by the court-appointed counselor to validate the allegations of sexual abuse in this case were novel, the father's motion for a Frye hearing was properly denied.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Important New Decisions - July 13, 2011
Antithetical to Grant Standing Due to Existence of No Contact Order.
In Matter of Thomas X, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2640258 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) the Appellate Division affirmed an order which dismissed Wayne RR.'s applications, in two proceedings for custody of the children. When the Broome County Department of Social Services alleged that respondent Megan X. (mother) had violated the terms of Family Court's order directing her to ensure that her children (born in 1997, 2002 and 2003) have no contact with her boyfriend, Wayne RR. (petitioner), who is a known sex offender, she surrendered her parental rights. The mother had previously admitted to allegations of neglect after allowing unsupervised and inappropriate contact between petitioner and the children. Thereupon, petitioner commenced two proceedings seeking custody of the children. Finding that petitioner lacked standing, Family Court dismissed his petitions without a hearing. Family Court also granted a one-year order of protection in favor of the children against petitioner and denied his subsequent motion to vacate that order. The Appellate Division held that inasmuch as petitioner has no biological relationship to the children, his standing to seek custody was determined under the common-law standard requiring the establishment of extraordinary factual circumstances (see Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 548 [1976]). While the mother's surrender, the absence of the biological fathers from the children's lives and the lack of any other suitable relative may normally be considered as extraordinary circumstances the Appellate Division agreed with Family Court that it would be antithetical here to grant standing in spite of the existence of the no contact order. The mother admitted neglect based, in part, on allowing petitioner, who had a history of exposing himself to children, to have unsupervised contact with the children, to sleep in the same bed with the male middle child and to shower and urinate in the toilet together with the oldest male child. Given the lack of any real factual dispute regarding petitioner's role in the circumstances leading to the mother's admission of neglect and the issuance of an order directing her to ensure that he have no contact with the children, it would not disturb Family
Court's conclusion that he lacked standing to seek custody.
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Cplr 3211 May Be Directed Only Against a Cause of Action or a Defense, Not a Motion
In Matter of Burnham v Brenna, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2624043 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), the father moved to dismiss the mother's motion pursuant to CPLR 2221 to renew her prior motion and for an award of an attorney's fee. The Appellate Division held that Family Court properly denied the father's motion, because a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 may be directed only against a cause of action or a defense, not a motion (see CPLR 3211[a], [b] ). The proper response to the mother's motion would have been to submit opposition papers (see CPLR 2214[b] ).
It Is Error as a Matter of Law to Make an Order Respecting Custody, Even in a Pendente Lite Context, Based on Controverted Allegations Without a Full Hearing
In Matter of Swinson v Brewington, 84 A.D.3d 1251, 925 N.Y.S.2d 96 (2d Dept, 2011) petitioner father and the respondent mother were in a relationship from 2001 to 2004, but were never married. Their son David was born on May 10, 2002. From the time of his birth, David lived with his mother in Brooklyn while his father visited him at least four times a month. There was no court order concerning David's custody. In the Spring of 2006 the father moved to Tennessee. Beginning in 2007, David spent the summer with his father in Tennessee, and remained during the school year in Brooklyn with his mother. The father also traveled to Brooklyn to visit David during the Christmas holiday season in 2006, 2007, and 2008. At the end of the summer in August 2009, the father enrolled David in school in Tennessee, rather than return David to his mother in Brooklyn. He also filed a petition for custody. Shortly thereafter, the mother filed a cross petition for custody. When the parties initially appeared before the Family Court on September 8, 2009, the Family Court decided that David should remain in Tennessee so as not to disturb the status quo until the court received more information, since David had started school on August 10, 2009. Toward that end, the Family Court referred the matter to a judicial hearing officer for an evidentiary hearing. On October 26, 2009, the parties appeared before the Judicial Hearing Officer, at which time no testimony was taken or exhibits received, although the father indicated he was prepared to go forward. There was only oral argument on the issue of temporary custody. In support of his petition, the father annexed David's file from PS 329, David's former school in Brooklyn, which included his school records and his teachers' notes regarding various behavior issues and interactions with the mother. PS 329's file showed that for the 2008/2009 school year, David had excessive absences, was frequently tardy, and performed poorly. It also documented that from April to June 2009, David used profanity toward his teacher and classmates on numerous occasions, pushed his classmates, and punched himself. The teachers' notes also indicated that the mother was asked to leave the school grounds one morning when she began harassing another child about bothering David, and failed to attend an appointment with school personnel to discuss David's behavior. During this appearance, the attorney for the child stated, without submitting any evidence in support of her comments, that David was a special needs child and, as such, would not receive the services as provided for by PS 329 pursuant to his Individual Education Plan at his school in Tennessee. She acknowledged that David did not want to choose between his parents because he loved both of them, but it was her position that the mother should be issued a temporary order of custody. The father objected to the attorney for the child making a "report" and providing her own recommendation to the Judicial Hearing Officer. He disputed the statements made by the attorney for the child with respect to the sufficiency of David's school in Tennessee and sought to enter David's Tennessee school records into evidence. However, the Judicial Hearing Officer refused to admit the records or proceed with a hearing. In an order dated October 26, 2009, the Judicial Hearing Officer awarded temporary custody of David to the mother. The Appellate Divison pointed out that as a general rule, while temporary custody may be properly fixed without a hearing where sufficient facts are shown by uncontroverted affidavits, it is error as a matter of law to make an order respecting custody, even in a pendente lite context, based on controverted allegations without having had the benefit of a full hearing. The Judicial Hearing Officer erred in relying on the report of the attorney for the child and refusing to take testimony and receive documentary evidence offered by the father to refute the report. While attorneys for the children, as advocates, may make their positions known to the court orally or in writing, presenting reports containing facts which are not part of the record or making ex parte submissions to the court are inappropriate practices (citing Weiglhofer v. Weiglhofer, 1 A.D.3d 786, 788, 766 N.Y.S.2d 727 n.). Here, the Judicial Hearing Officer erroneously allowed the attorney for the child to refer to matters that were not in evidence, and compounded its error by refusing to allow the father to proffer documentary evidence to contradict the assertions of the attorney for the child.
In Matter of Thomas X, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2640258 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) the Appellate Division affirmed an order which dismissed Wayne RR.'s applications, in two proceedings for custody of the children. When the Broome County Department of Social Services alleged that respondent Megan X. (mother) had violated the terms of Family Court's order directing her to ensure that her children (born in 1997, 2002 and 2003) have no contact with her boyfriend, Wayne RR. (petitioner), who is a known sex offender, she surrendered her parental rights. The mother had previously admitted to allegations of neglect after allowing unsupervised and inappropriate contact between petitioner and the children. Thereupon, petitioner commenced two proceedings seeking custody of the children. Finding that petitioner lacked standing, Family Court dismissed his petitions without a hearing. Family Court also granted a one-year order of protection in favor of the children against petitioner and denied his subsequent motion to vacate that order. The Appellate Division held that inasmuch as petitioner has no biological relationship to the children, his standing to seek custody was determined under the common-law standard requiring the establishment of extraordinary factual circumstances (see Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 548 [1976]). While the mother's surrender, the absence of the biological fathers from the children's lives and the lack of any other suitable relative may normally be considered as extraordinary circumstances the Appellate Division agreed with Family Court that it would be antithetical here to grant standing in spite of the existence of the no contact order. The mother admitted neglect based, in part, on allowing petitioner, who had a history of exposing himself to children, to have unsupervised contact with the children, to sleep in the same bed with the male middle child and to shower and urinate in the toilet together with the oldest male child. Given the lack of any real factual dispute regarding petitioner's role in the circumstances leading to the mother's admission of neglect and the issuance of an order directing her to ensure that he have no contact with the children, it would not disturb Family
Court's conclusion that he lacked standing to seek custody.
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Cplr 3211 May Be Directed Only Against a Cause of Action or a Defense, Not a Motion
In Matter of Burnham v Brenna, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2624043 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), the father moved to dismiss the mother's motion pursuant to CPLR 2221 to renew her prior motion and for an award of an attorney's fee. The Appellate Division held that Family Court properly denied the father's motion, because a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 may be directed only against a cause of action or a defense, not a motion (see CPLR 3211[a], [b] ). The proper response to the mother's motion would have been to submit opposition papers (see CPLR 2214[b] ).
It Is Error as a Matter of Law to Make an Order Respecting Custody, Even in a Pendente Lite Context, Based on Controverted Allegations Without a Full Hearing
In Matter of Swinson v Brewington, 84 A.D.3d 1251, 925 N.Y.S.2d 96 (2d Dept, 2011) petitioner father and the respondent mother were in a relationship from 2001 to 2004, but were never married. Their son David was born on May 10, 2002. From the time of his birth, David lived with his mother in Brooklyn while his father visited him at least four times a month. There was no court order concerning David's custody. In the Spring of 2006 the father moved to Tennessee. Beginning in 2007, David spent the summer with his father in Tennessee, and remained during the school year in Brooklyn with his mother. The father also traveled to Brooklyn to visit David during the Christmas holiday season in 2006, 2007, and 2008. At the end of the summer in August 2009, the father enrolled David in school in Tennessee, rather than return David to his mother in Brooklyn. He also filed a petition for custody. Shortly thereafter, the mother filed a cross petition for custody. When the parties initially appeared before the Family Court on September 8, 2009, the Family Court decided that David should remain in Tennessee so as not to disturb the status quo until the court received more information, since David had started school on August 10, 2009. Toward that end, the Family Court referred the matter to a judicial hearing officer for an evidentiary hearing. On October 26, 2009, the parties appeared before the Judicial Hearing Officer, at which time no testimony was taken or exhibits received, although the father indicated he was prepared to go forward. There was only oral argument on the issue of temporary custody. In support of his petition, the father annexed David's file from PS 329, David's former school in Brooklyn, which included his school records and his teachers' notes regarding various behavior issues and interactions with the mother. PS 329's file showed that for the 2008/2009 school year, David had excessive absences, was frequently tardy, and performed poorly. It also documented that from April to June 2009, David used profanity toward his teacher and classmates on numerous occasions, pushed his classmates, and punched himself. The teachers' notes also indicated that the mother was asked to leave the school grounds one morning when she began harassing another child about bothering David, and failed to attend an appointment with school personnel to discuss David's behavior. During this appearance, the attorney for the child stated, without submitting any evidence in support of her comments, that David was a special needs child and, as such, would not receive the services as provided for by PS 329 pursuant to his Individual Education Plan at his school in Tennessee. She acknowledged that David did not want to choose between his parents because he loved both of them, but it was her position that the mother should be issued a temporary order of custody. The father objected to the attorney for the child making a "report" and providing her own recommendation to the Judicial Hearing Officer. He disputed the statements made by the attorney for the child with respect to the sufficiency of David's school in Tennessee and sought to enter David's Tennessee school records into evidence. However, the Judicial Hearing Officer refused to admit the records or proceed with a hearing. In an order dated October 26, 2009, the Judicial Hearing Officer awarded temporary custody of David to the mother. The Appellate Divison pointed out that as a general rule, while temporary custody may be properly fixed without a hearing where sufficient facts are shown by uncontroverted affidavits, it is error as a matter of law to make an order respecting custody, even in a pendente lite context, based on controverted allegations without having had the benefit of a full hearing. The Judicial Hearing Officer erred in relying on the report of the attorney for the child and refusing to take testimony and receive documentary evidence offered by the father to refute the report. While attorneys for the children, as advocates, may make their positions known to the court orally or in writing, presenting reports containing facts which are not part of the record or making ex parte submissions to the court are inappropriate practices (citing Weiglhofer v. Weiglhofer, 1 A.D.3d 786, 788, 766 N.Y.S.2d 727 n.). Here, the Judicial Hearing Officer erroneously allowed the attorney for the child to refer to matters that were not in evidence, and compounded its error by refusing to allow the father to proffer documentary evidence to contradict the assertions of the attorney for the child.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Important New Decisions - July 6, 2011
Counsel Sanctioned for Obtaining From Court a “So-Ordered Trial Subpoena Before Trial Date Was Set
In Duval v Duval, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2574001 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to impose sanctions upon the plaintiff and her counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Under the circumstances presented, the conduct of the plaintiff and her counsel in obtaining a "so-ordered" subpoena duces tecum and serving it upon Long Island Jewish Medical Center to obtain the defendant's medical records prior to filing a note of issue and before a trial date was set was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c), as it was completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Contrary to the defendant's contention, pretrial disclosure on the issue of child custody is permissible with respect to a parent's health, since the parties to a contested custody proceeding place their physical and mental conditions in issue. Here, in her attempt to obtain pretrial disclosure of the defendant's medical records in connection with the issue of child custody, the plaintiff sought a "so-ordered" trial subpoena duces tecum from the Supreme Court, thereby obviating the need to obtain the defendant's written authorization to release the records. The plaintiff also failed to serve the subpoena on the defendant in a timely manner, thus depriving him of the opportunity to request withdrawal of the subpoena or to make a timely motion to quash. Moreover, it can be inferred from the record that the challenged conduct was designed primarily to harass and maliciously injure the defendant. In view of the foregoing, the defendant's motion to impose sanctions upon the plaintiff and her counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 should have been granted. It remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for a hearing on the issue of the amount of an appropriate sanction to be imposed upon the plaintiff and her counsel. The Appellate Division also held that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, with limited exception, defendant's motion to suppress all information relating to the contents of records produced in response to the subpoena duces tecum served upon Long Island Jewish Medical Center and to preclude the plaintiff from using such information. Under the circumstances of this case, suppression and preclusion, along with the imposition of a sanction, were the appropriate remedies for the improper manner in which those records were obtained (see CPLR 3103[c] ). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress all information relating to the contents of records produced in response to the subpoena served upon Long Island Jewish Medical Center and to preclude the plaintiff from using such information should have been granted in its entirety, with a directive that the plaintiff and her counsel deliver all records produced in response to the aforementioned subpoena to the defendant and to affirm that all such records, and any copies thereof, have been so returned and/or
destroyed and were not transmitted to any third party.
Appellate Divison Holds That Emancipation Occurs When Child Becomes Economically Independent Through Employment and Is Self-supporting.
In Smith v Smith, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2571089 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division affirmed an order which, granted the wife child support and spousal support. It found that the record supported the Support Magistrate's determination that the parties' son was not emancipated. It pointed out that a parent is obligated to support his or her child until the age of 21 unless the child becomes emancipated, which occurs once the child becomes economically independent through employment and is self-supporting. Although the parties' son worked full-time, paid for his own car insurance, and paid for his own cell phone, the fact that his mother still paid for his food, shelter, clothing, and health and dental insurance, demonstrated that he was not economically independent of his parents.
Family Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Consider Objections Unless Proof of Service Filed
In Matter of Girgenti v Cress, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2571850 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), the father appealed from an order of the family court which dismissed his petition to enforce a stipulation of settlement concerning child support arrears. The Appellate Division affirmed the order finding that the issues raised by the father on this appeal are not reviewable, since he failed to file proof of service of a copy of the objections on the mother. Family Court Act 439(e) provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] party filing objections shall serve a copy of such objections upon the opposing party," and that "[p]roof of service upon the opposing party shall be filed with the court at the time of
filing of objections and any rebuttal." By failing to file proof of service of a copy of his objections on the mother, the father failed to fulfill a condition precedent to filing timely written objections to the Support Magistrate's order. Consequently, the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the objections and the father waived his right to appellate review.
Denial of Objections to Finding of Willfulness and Recommendation of Incarceration Proper since Recommendations Had No Force or Effect until Confirmed
In Matter of Ceballos v Castillo, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2572307 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), the Appellate Divison observed that to establish entitlement to a downward modification of a child support order entered on consent, a party has the burden of showing that there has been a substantial change in circumstances. Loss of employment may at times constitute a substantial change in circumstances. A party seeking a downward modification of his or her child support obligation based upon a loss of employment has the burden of demonstrating that he or she diligently sought to obtain employment commensurate with his or her earning capacity . Here, the father testified that he was unable to pay child support because he had not worked since 2008 and was not eligible to receive unemployment benefits. He stated that he had been working for the Renaissance Hotel until May 2008, but that he left that job after the hotel significantly cut back his hours. He thereafter obtained employment at a pizzeria, where he was initially able to work longer hours. Although he was eventually let go from his position at
the pizzeria, he did not, contrary to the Support Magistrate's finding, quit the pizzeria job. The father further testified in detail that he attempted to obtain employment at various specified restaurants and supermarkets; that he went to an employment agency called Labor Ready to find a job; that he looked for employment in newspapers and the "Pennysaver" publication; and that he explored job leads which he learned of via word-of-mouth. Under these circumstances, the father demonstrated that his loss of employment constituted a substantial change in circumstances, and that he made a good faith effort to obtain new employment which was commensurate with his qualifications and experience. Thus, the Support Magistrate's determination that the father failed to satisfy his burden of establishing an inability to pay his child support
obligation was not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the father's objections
to the denial of his petition for downward modification of his child support
obligations should have been granted.
The Appellate Division pointed out that to the extent that the father filed objections to the Support Magistrate's finding of willfulness and her recommendation of a term of incarceration of six months, the denial of those objections was proper, since the Support Magistrate's recommendations had no force and effect until confirmed by the Family Court Judge. Upon, in effect, confirming the willfulness finding, the Family Court issued an order of commitment directing that the father be committed to the Westchester County Jail unless he purged his contempt by paying the sum of $1140 to the Support Collection Unit. The father's failure to pay child support constituted
prima facie evidence of a willful violation. This prima facie showing shifted the burden to the father to come forward with competent, credible evidence that his failure to pay support in accordance with the terms of the order on consent was not willful. In the absence of proof of an ability to pay, an order of commitment for willful violation of a support order may not stand. Based upon the evidence in the record, the father met his burden of establishing his inability to meet his child support obligation set forth in the
order dated April 11, 2005. The evidence did not support the Support Magistrate's
finding that the father had the means, resources, and ability to pay child support, but chose not do so.
In Duval v Duval, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2574001 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to impose sanctions upon the plaintiff and her counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Under the circumstances presented, the conduct of the plaintiff and her counsel in obtaining a "so-ordered" subpoena duces tecum and serving it upon Long Island Jewish Medical Center to obtain the defendant's medical records prior to filing a note of issue and before a trial date was set was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c), as it was completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Contrary to the defendant's contention, pretrial disclosure on the issue of child custody is permissible with respect to a parent's health, since the parties to a contested custody proceeding place their physical and mental conditions in issue. Here, in her attempt to obtain pretrial disclosure of the defendant's medical records in connection with the issue of child custody, the plaintiff sought a "so-ordered" trial subpoena duces tecum from the Supreme Court, thereby obviating the need to obtain the defendant's written authorization to release the records. The plaintiff also failed to serve the subpoena on the defendant in a timely manner, thus depriving him of the opportunity to request withdrawal of the subpoena or to make a timely motion to quash. Moreover, it can be inferred from the record that the challenged conduct was designed primarily to harass and maliciously injure the defendant. In view of the foregoing, the defendant's motion to impose sanctions upon the plaintiff and her counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 should have been granted. It remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for a hearing on the issue of the amount of an appropriate sanction to be imposed upon the plaintiff and her counsel. The Appellate Division also held that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, with limited exception, defendant's motion to suppress all information relating to the contents of records produced in response to the subpoena duces tecum served upon Long Island Jewish Medical Center and to preclude the plaintiff from using such information. Under the circumstances of this case, suppression and preclusion, along with the imposition of a sanction, were the appropriate remedies for the improper manner in which those records were obtained (see CPLR 3103[c] ). Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress all information relating to the contents of records produced in response to the subpoena served upon Long Island Jewish Medical Center and to preclude the plaintiff from using such information should have been granted in its entirety, with a directive that the plaintiff and her counsel deliver all records produced in response to the aforementioned subpoena to the defendant and to affirm that all such records, and any copies thereof, have been so returned and/or
destroyed and were not transmitted to any third party.
Appellate Divison Holds That Emancipation Occurs When Child Becomes Economically Independent Through Employment and Is Self-supporting.
In Smith v Smith, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2571089 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division affirmed an order which, granted the wife child support and spousal support. It found that the record supported the Support Magistrate's determination that the parties' son was not emancipated. It pointed out that a parent is obligated to support his or her child until the age of 21 unless the child becomes emancipated, which occurs once the child becomes economically independent through employment and is self-supporting. Although the parties' son worked full-time, paid for his own car insurance, and paid for his own cell phone, the fact that his mother still paid for his food, shelter, clothing, and health and dental insurance, demonstrated that he was not economically independent of his parents.
Family Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Consider Objections Unless Proof of Service Filed
In Matter of Girgenti v Cress, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2571850 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), the father appealed from an order of the family court which dismissed his petition to enforce a stipulation of settlement concerning child support arrears. The Appellate Division affirmed the order finding that the issues raised by the father on this appeal are not reviewable, since he failed to file proof of service of a copy of the objections on the mother. Family Court Act 439(e) provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] party filing objections shall serve a copy of such objections upon the opposing party," and that "[p]roof of service upon the opposing party shall be filed with the court at the time of
filing of objections and any rebuttal." By failing to file proof of service of a copy of his objections on the mother, the father failed to fulfill a condition precedent to filing timely written objections to the Support Magistrate's order. Consequently, the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the objections and the father waived his right to appellate review.
Denial of Objections to Finding of Willfulness and Recommendation of Incarceration Proper since Recommendations Had No Force or Effect until Confirmed
In Matter of Ceballos v Castillo, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2572307 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), the Appellate Divison observed that to establish entitlement to a downward modification of a child support order entered on consent, a party has the burden of showing that there has been a substantial change in circumstances. Loss of employment may at times constitute a substantial change in circumstances. A party seeking a downward modification of his or her child support obligation based upon a loss of employment has the burden of demonstrating that he or she diligently sought to obtain employment commensurate with his or her earning capacity . Here, the father testified that he was unable to pay child support because he had not worked since 2008 and was not eligible to receive unemployment benefits. He stated that he had been working for the Renaissance Hotel until May 2008, but that he left that job after the hotel significantly cut back his hours. He thereafter obtained employment at a pizzeria, where he was initially able to work longer hours. Although he was eventually let go from his position at
the pizzeria, he did not, contrary to the Support Magistrate's finding, quit the pizzeria job. The father further testified in detail that he attempted to obtain employment at various specified restaurants and supermarkets; that he went to an employment agency called Labor Ready to find a job; that he looked for employment in newspapers and the "Pennysaver" publication; and that he explored job leads which he learned of via word-of-mouth. Under these circumstances, the father demonstrated that his loss of employment constituted a substantial change in circumstances, and that he made a good faith effort to obtain new employment which was commensurate with his qualifications and experience. Thus, the Support Magistrate's determination that the father failed to satisfy his burden of establishing an inability to pay his child support
obligation was not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the father's objections
to the denial of his petition for downward modification of his child support
obligations should have been granted.
The Appellate Division pointed out that to the extent that the father filed objections to the Support Magistrate's finding of willfulness and her recommendation of a term of incarceration of six months, the denial of those objections was proper, since the Support Magistrate's recommendations had no force and effect until confirmed by the Family Court Judge. Upon, in effect, confirming the willfulness finding, the Family Court issued an order of commitment directing that the father be committed to the Westchester County Jail unless he purged his contempt by paying the sum of $1140 to the Support Collection Unit. The father's failure to pay child support constituted
prima facie evidence of a willful violation. This prima facie showing shifted the burden to the father to come forward with competent, credible evidence that his failure to pay support in accordance with the terms of the order on consent was not willful. In the absence of proof of an ability to pay, an order of commitment for willful violation of a support order may not stand. Based upon the evidence in the record, the father met his burden of establishing his inability to meet his child support obligation set forth in the
order dated April 11, 2005. The evidence did not support the Support Magistrate's
finding that the father had the means, resources, and ability to pay child support, but chose not do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)