Case ID: ne3d_111/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Steven BAISLEY, Appellant.
    No. 104
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided October 23, 2018
    Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York City (Richard L. Herz- feld of counsel), for appellant.
    David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
    OPINION OF THE COURT
   MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed.

Defendant's challenge to the authority of Justice Court over criminal charges arising from his noncompliance with a child support order is not properly before this Court. Contrary to the parties' mistaken representation below, the underlying support order was not issued by Family Court but by Supreme Court in the context of defendant's contested matrimonial proceeding. As defendant concedes, Supreme Court has constitutional authority to issue such an order (see N.Y. Const Art VI, § 7 ; Family Court Act § 114 ; see generally Merril Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Family Court Act § 411 ["Family Court is ... powerless to determine those issues which comprise a [pending] matrimonial action, including child support, unless the matter is specifically referenced to the Family Court by the Supreme Court"] ). As a consequence, we have no occasion to opine on defendant's claim that, pursuant to the Family Court Act, Family Court has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over any criminal charges based on violations of its own support order.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.

Order affirmed, in a memorandum.