Reset A A Font size: Print

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

IN RE: Marisa URIARTE, respondent, v. Dominick IPPOLITO III, appellant.

Decided: August 12, 2008

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, RANDALL T. ENG, and ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ. Dominick Ippolito III, Staten Island, N.Y., appellant pro se.

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Didomenico, J.), dated June 13, 2007, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Weir-Reeves, S.M.) dated April 16, 2007, which, after a hearing, found that he was in willful violation of a prior order of support, and directed him to pay unreimbursed medical and dental expenses in the sum of $950.10.

ORDERED that the order dated June 13, 2007, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

 The mother met her initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence of the father's nonpayment of his child support obligation, which required him to pay his pro rata share of unreimbursed medical and dental expenses (see Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 69, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154;  Matter of Lerner v. Relkin, 27 A.D.3d 745, 746, 813 N.Y.S.2d 726).   The mother met her burden through the submission of medical bills and her sworn testimony at the fact-finding hearing.   The Support Magistrate properly included in the calculation of such expenses only those sums for which the mother submitted proof of actual payment to the third-party medical providers (see Boris v. Boris, 272 A.D.2d 284, 285, 707 N.Y.S.2d 898;  Carella v. Carella, 106 A.D.2d 601, 603, 483 N.Y.S.2d 420).

 The father proffered no proof of having reimbursed the mother for any of the medical or dental expenses for which she sought reimbursement pursuant to the instant petition.   His failure to pay as ordered constituted “prima facie evidence of a willful violation” (Family Ct. Act § 454[3][a];  see Matter of Watson v. Watson, 21 A.D.3d 497, 498, 799 N.Y.S.2d 809).

 In the absence of any evidence such as a prior agreement between the parties or a court order requiring that the mother bring the parties' child to in-plan medical providers only, the mother was under no obligation to do so (see generally Hanfling v. Hanfling, 23 A.D.3d 433, 434, 808 N.Y.S.2d 117;   Cohen-Davidson v. Davidson, 291 A.D.2d 474, 475-476, 740 N.Y.S.2d 68).

 The Family Court properly rejected, as proof of payment, copies of checks and receipts pertaining to child support payments made by the father in 2004 which did not comprise any payments pertaining to the reimbursement of medical and dental expenses.

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.

Copied to clipboard