Opinion
8363
02-07-2019
In re NATASHA M., Petitioner–Appellant, v. JAMES H., Respondent–Respondent.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant. Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, for respondent.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, for respondent.
Sweeny, J.P., Tom, Webber, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
Petitioner failed to establish that respondent willfully violated the order of child support (see Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 69, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154 [1995] ; Family Ct. Act § 454 ). The evidence, which included the New York City Office of Child Support Enforcement Account Statement, showed that respondent made all the payments as ordered, and that his payments actually exceeded the required monthly child support payments. Contrary to petitioner's argument that respondent willfully violated the order because he made no additional payments towards the accrued arrears, the order of support did not direct respondent to pay an additional fixed amount towards the arrears.
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.