From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tolkinen v. Siewert

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 15, 2015
130 A.D.3d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2014-01929 (Docket No. F-5430-98/13Q)

07-15-2015

In the Matter of Diana L. TOLKINEN, respondent, v. Reuben A. SIEWERT, appellant.

Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.


Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Opinion

Appeal from an order of commitment of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Joseph A. Egitto, J.), entered February 6, 2014. The order of commitment confirmed findings of fact and an order of disposition of that court (Steven Kaufman, S.M.), also entered February 6, 2014, made after a hearing, finding that Reuben A. Siewert willfully violated an order of child support and committed him to the custody of the Dutchess County Jail for a period of 30 days.

ORDERED that the order of commitment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Proof of failure to pay child support as ordered constitutes prima facie evidence of a willful violation (see Family Ct. Act § 454[3][a] ; Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 68–69, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154 ; Matter of Kaplan v. Kaplan, 102 A.D.3d 873, 957 N.Y.S.2d 904 ). Once a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party who owes the support to offer some competent, credible evidence of his or her inability to make the required payments (see Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d at 69–70, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154 ; Matter of Kaplan v. Kaplan, 102 A.D.3d at 873, 957 N.Y.S.2d 904 ). Here, upon the petitioner's prima facie showing of the father's failure to pay child support as ordered, the father failed to meet his burden of offering competent, credible evidence of his inability to make the required payments (see Matter of Kaplan v. Kaplan, 102 A.D.3d at 873, 957 N.Y.S.2d 904 ; Matter of Logue v. Abell, 97 A.D.3d 582, 583, 947 N.Y.S.2d 329 ; Matter of Phillips v. Giddings, 96 A.D.3d 950, 951, 946 N.Y.S.2d 496 ; Matter of

Cooper v. Robertson, 69 A.D.3d 714, 714, 892 N.Y.S.2d 522 ). Accordingly, the Family Court properly determined that the father willfully violated an order of child support.

SKELOS, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tolkinen v. Siewert

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 15, 2015
130 A.D.3d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Tolkinen v. Siewert

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Diana L. TOLKINEN, respondent, v. Reuben A. SIEWERT…

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

Date published: Jul 15, 2015

Citations

130 A.D.3d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
12 N.Y.S.3d 559
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 6156

Citing Cases

Kuechenmeister v. Kuechenmeister

The factfinder's credibility determinations are entitled to great deference, and its factual findings should…

Dezil v. Garlick

Although the appeal from so much of the order of commitment as ordered that the mother be incarcerated is…