Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: TERIZA SHEHATOU, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT, v. EMAD LOUKA, RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SUSAN BASILE JANOWSKI, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, LIVERPOOL.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs and respondent is granted leave to move to reinstate the appeal upon the posting of an undertaking with Family Court, Onondaga County, in the amount of $25,000 within 60 days of service of a copy of the order of this Court with notice of entry.
Memorandum: Family Court issued an order, entered upon respondent's default, in which it determined that respondent is in willful violation of a prior support order. As a consequence thereof, the court issued a further order committing respondent to six months of incarceration, and also issued a warrant for respondent's arrest. Respondent filed an application by order to show cause seeking, inter alia, to vacate both orders. The court refused to sign the order to show cause seeking to vacate the orders and, in its “order of dismissal,” determined that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies to respondent inasmuch as respondent—a California resident who is now the subject of an arrest warrant in this State, but who refuses to return to this State—was attempting to “evade the law while simultaneously seeking its protection” (Matter of Skiff–Murray v. Murray, 305 A.D.2d 751, 752–753; see Matter of Gerald G.G., 46 N.Y.2d 813, 813). Respondent appeals from the order of dismissal.
Contrary to respondent's contention, the court properly determined that the fugitive disentitlement theory applied to his application (see Wechsler v. Wechsler, 45 AD3d 470, 473), and we conclude that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine also applies to this appeal (see id. at 474; Matter of Joshua M. v. Dimari N., 9 AD3d 617, 619). By respondent's “default and absence, [he] is evading the very orders from which [he] seeks appellate relief and ‘has willfully made [himself] unavailable to obey the mandate of the [court] in the event of an affirmance’ “ (Joshua M., 9 AD3d at 619; see Skiff–Murray, 305 A.D.2d at 752–753). We therefore dismiss the appeal and grant leave to respondent to move to reinstate it on the condition that, within 60 days of service of a copy of the order of this Court with notice of entry, he posts an undertaking with the court in the amount of $25,000, i.e., the amount of child support respondent owed at the time the court determined that he willfully violated the prior support order (see Wechsler, 45 AD3d at 474; see generally Gerald G.G., 46 N.Y.2d at 813). In light of our determination, we decline to reach respondent's remaining contentions.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CAF 13–02031
Decided: June 13, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)