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: SUSAN RICHARDS, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT, v. WINDSOR C. RICHARDS, RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order denying his written objections to the order of the Support Magistrate finding him in willful violation of a child support order. Preliminarily, contrary to the father's contention, the gaps in the hearing transcript attributable to inaudible portions of the audio recording are not so significant as to preclude appellate review (see Matter of Van Court v. Wadsworth, 122 AD3d 1339, 1340, lv denied 24 NY3d 916). Contrary to the father's further contention, petitioner mother was not required to provide a written record detailing the missed child support payments, and her unequivocal testimony that the father failed to pay any child support from October 1995 to December 2004 is sufficient (cf. Matter of Cox v. Cox, 181 A.D.2d 201, 204–205). The father, on the other hand, testified that he paid child support by check during the time period in question, but he failed to submit any documentary evidence in support of that assertion. In light of the Support Magistrate's superior position to assess the credibility of the witnesses (see DeNoto v. DeNoto, 96 AD3d 1646, 1648), we see no reason to disturb the determination that the father willfully violated the child support order.
Finally, to the extent that the father contends that the mother waived her right to future child support payments by accepting from him certain items and benefits, including property tax payments, his contentions to that effect are not properly before us because he failed to raise them in his written objections to the Support Magistrate's order (see Matter of Farruggia v. Farruggia, 125 AD3d 1490, 1490; Matter of Porter v. D'Adamo, 113 AD3d 908, 909–910).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CAF 14–00484
Decided: March 25, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)