Thomas v. Sylvester, 95 A.D.3d 1488 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Thomas v. Sylvester, 95 A.D.3d 1488 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …no explanation was offered by the father for nonpayment. at p. 1489 ⚠ not in text
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of St. Lawrence County Support Collection Unit v. Morrow (nyappdiv, 2020-06-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of St. Lawrence County Support Collection Unit v. Morrow
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
The evidence of respondent's failure to pay support, as ordered, constituted prima facie evidence of a willful violation, shifting the burden to respondent to present competent evidence of his inability to pay ( see Matter of Powers v Powers , 86 NY2d at 69 ; Matter of Thomas v Sylvester , 95 AD3d 1488, 1489 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Duprey v. Klaers
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
This admission constituted prima facie evidence of a willful violation and shifted the burden to the father " to offer some competent, credible evidence of his inability to make the required payments" ( Matter of Powers v Powers , 86 NY2d 63, 69-70 [1995]; see Matter of Sayyeau v Nourse , 165 AD3d 1417 , 1418 [*2][2018]; Matter of Thomas v Sylvester , 95 AD3d 1488, 1489 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Leder v. Leder
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Under these circumstances, and according due deference to Family Court’s credibility assessments (see Matter of Heyn v Burr, 19 AD3d 896, 898 [2005]), ample evidence supports Family Court’s determination that the mother willfully violated the order of support (see Matter of Ulster County Support Collection Unit v Oliver, 135 AD3d 1114 , 1115-1116 [2016]; Matter of Thomas v Sylvester, 95 AD3d 1488, 1489 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) St. Lawrence County Support Collection Unit ex rel. Crystal U. v. Chad T.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Family Court, which was not obligated to credit his unsupported testimony with regard to his resources or job search efforts (see Matter of Thomas v Sylvester, 95 AD3d 1488, 1489 [2012]; Matter of Madison County Commr. of Social Servs. v Felker, 80 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2011]), noted that, even during the limited periods that he was gainfully employed, respondent did not make payments as required.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) St. Lawrence County Support Collection Unit ex rel. Crystal U. v. Chad T.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Family Court, which was not obligated to credit his unsupported testimony with regard to his resources or job search efforts (see Matter of Thomas v Sylvester, 95 AD3d 1488, 1489 [2012]; Matter of Madison County Commr. of Social Servs. v Felker, 80 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2011]), noted that, even during the limited periods that he was gainfully employed, respondent did not make payments as required.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carnahan v. Parrillo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Lawrence County Support Collection Unit v Laneuville, 101 AD3d 1199, 1200 [2012]; Matter of Richards-Szabo v Szabo, 99 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2012]; Matter of Thomas v Sylvester, 95 AD3d 1488, 1489 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carnahan v. Parrillo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Lawrence County Support Collection Unit v Laneuville, 101 AD3d 1199, 1200 [2012]; Matter of Richards-Szabo v Szabo, 99 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2012]; Matter of Thomas v Sylvester, 95 AD3d 1488, 1489 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Washington County Department of Social Services v. Costello
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Nonetheless, our review of the transcript of the hearing before the Support Magistrate reveals that the father did not dispute that petitioner met its burden of presenting a prima facie case supporting the finding that he had violated the support order and was in arrears (see Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]); rather, he argued that his inability to pay rendered his violation not willful (see Matter of Thomas v Sylvester, 95 AD3d 1488, 1489 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Washington County Department of Social Services v. Costello
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Nonetheless, our review of the transcript of the hearing before the Support Magistrate reveals that the father did not dispute that petitioner met its burden of presenting a prima facie case supporting the finding that he had violated the support order and was in arrears (see Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]); rather, he argued that his inability to pay rendered his violation not willful (see Matter of Thomas v Sylvester, 95 AD3d 1488, 1489 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Nisha Thomas
v.
Hudson Kenneth Sylvester
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 10, 2012.
95 A.D.3d 1488
Lahtinen.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (Duggan, J.), entered August 3, 2011, which[*1489] granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, to hold respondent in willful violation of a prior order of support.

Petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent (hereinafter the father) are the parents of one child (born in 2005). Pursuant to an order entered on consent in April 2009, the father was required to pay $125 for child support, $7.84 for health insurance and $25 for arrears per week. In March 2010, the mother commenced this proceeding alleging that the father was in willful violation of his obligation to make support payments and was in arrears nearly $4,000. Following a hearing, the Support Magistrate found that the father was in willful violation of the order of support, and Family Court confirmed and found that the father had willfully failed to pay $7,638.61 in support payments. The father appeals.

We affirm. The father’s acknowledgment that he was in arrears on the ordered child support constituted prima facie evidence that he willfully violated the order, and the burden then shifted to him to demonstrate his inability to pay (see Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]; Matter of Clark v Clark, 88 AD3d 1095, 1096-1097 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 803 [2012]; Matter of Lerman v Haines, 85 AD3d 1248, 1250 [2011]). Here, the father presented no evidence, other than unsupported testimony, that he lacked the resources to pay or had made efforts to find and maintain full-time employment and, therefore, the record supports the finding of willful violation (see Matter of Santana v Gonzalez, 90 AD3d 1198, 1200 [2011]; Matter of Scott v Scott, 50 AD3d 1193, 1194 [2008]).

Peters, EJ., Mercure, Rose and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.