In re Tammy L. Dart

7 Citing cases

  1. Ray v. Harris

    285 A.D.2d 904 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

    By order entered March 16, 2000, Family Court dismissed the application on the ground that petitioner did "not set forth any change of circumstances" to warrant a modification and because "there is no existing order to modify" relating to custody or visitation. There was no appearance by respondent in Family Court on the petition nor has she filed an appearance on this appeal. On this appeal, petitioner's assigned counsel — who perceives the petition as one solely seeking modification of the previous order of child support — seeks to be relieved of his assignment on the ground that no nonfrivolous appealable issues can be raised in the context of this case (see, Matter of Dart v. Howell, 237 A.D.2d 825; Matter of Green v. Clark, 224 A.D.2d 419). The record before us includes three separate documents, labeled notices of appeal, which assert, for the first time, that petitioner is unable to pay child support because he is incarcerated. Our review of the record and the brief filed by petitioner's assigned counsel discloses the existence of potential nonfrivolous issues which are of arguable merit, including whether Family Court should have treated petitioner's application as a petition seeking an order directing that petitioner is to have visitation with both children and for an order of filiation relating to the daughter. Notably, the May 1991 order of paternity — which may or may not address issues of custody, visitation and child support — is not in the record and clearly could not have applied to the daughter who was born in 1992.

  2. Schoharie County Department of Social Services v. Howard LL.

    285 A.D.2d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 1 times

    Respondent's counsel seeks to be relieved of representing respondent on the basis that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record, the brief submitted by respondent's counsel and respondent's pro se submissions, we agree. "The failure to pay support as ordered, constitutes prima facie evidence of a willful violation justifying commitment * * *" (Matter of Dart v. Howell, 237 A.D.2d 825, 825 [citations omitted]; see, Family Ct Act § 454[a]). Our review of the hearing transcript indicates that a representative of the support collection unit testified that respondent failed to pay the ordered support.

  3. Matter of Amber F

    272 A.D.2d 788 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 3 times

    Upon our review of the entire record and the briefs submitted by respondent's counsel and the child's Law Guardian, we agree that there are no nonfrivolous issues which can be raised on appeal (see, Matter of Jacque Dominic J., 264 A.D.2d 845; Matter of Ayesha Shandeia McM. [Maryann McM.], 255 A.D.2d 515). Inasmuch as insubstantial and sporadic contact does not defeat the petition, and in light of the undisputed proof submitted to Family Court that respondent neither visited with the child nor directly inquired about her subsequent to September 24, 1997 (see, Matter of Latif HH. [James HH.], 248 A.D.2d 831, 832; Matter of Tasha B. [Raymond B.], 240 A.D.2d 778, 779-780; Matter of Regina WW. [Ramon XX.], 182 A.D.2d 920), counsel's application to be relieved of her assignment is granted (see, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738; see generally, Matter of Amber EE. [Thomas FF.], 245 A.D.2d 895; Matter of Dart v. Howell, 237 A.D.2d 825). Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur.

  4. Mass DOR/CSE ex rel. Cunningham v. Haystrand

    256 A.D.2d 1235 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

    Memorandum: The record supports Family Court's determination that respondent willfully violated a prior support order. Respondent's undisputed failure to pay support constitutes prima facie evidence of willfulness ( see, Family Ct Act § 454 [a]; Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 69; Matter of Dart v. Howell, 237 A.D.2d 825). Family Court, which was in the best position to evaluate the evidence ( see, Matter of Susan M. v. Louis N., 206 A.D.2d 612, 614), was entitled to reject as lacking in credibility the testimony of respondent that he was unable to make the required payments. Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

  5. Matter of Brian E

    256 A.D.2d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

    Appeal from the Family Court of Ulster County (Work, J.). Respondent was adjudicated a person in need of supervision based upon his admission of facts alleged in the petition regarding school and behavioral problems and ultimately consented to placement with the Ulster County Department of Social Services for a period of one year. Respondent's counsel now seeks to be relieved of representing respondent on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Our review of the record and the brief submitted by respondent's counsel leads to the same conclusion. Accordingly, counsel's application for leave to withdraw is granted (see, Matter of Amber EE. [Thomas FF.], 245 A.D.2d 895; Matter of Dart v. Howell, 237 A.D.2d 825). Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

  6. In re Amber EE.

    245 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    Upon our review of the record and brief submitted by respondent's counsel, we agree. Consequently, counsel's application to be relieved of her assignment is granted (see, Matter of Dart v. Howell, 237 A.D.2d 825; see also, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738). Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ.

  7. In re William EE.

    245 A.D.2d 813 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 4 times

    Finally, inasmuch as respondent's only apparent plan for her son's future was long-term foster care, we cannot say that Family Court erred in adjudicating William to be a permanently neglected child and terminating respondent's parental rights (see generally, Matter of Abdul W., 224 A.D.2d 875, 876 [long-term foster care is not a viable plan]). Accordingly, Family Court's order is affirmed and counsel's application for leave to withdraw is granted (see, Matter of Dart v. Howell, 237 A.D.2d 825). Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur.