Case Name: In the Matter of Michele A. Darcy, Respondent, v. Donald D. Darcy, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-06-22
Citations: 140 A.D.3d 1061
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Michele A. Darcy, Respondent, v Donald D. Darcy, Appellant.
Judges: Eng, P.J., Roman, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 140
Pages: 1061–1061

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Michele A. Darcy, Respondent, v Donald D. Darcy, Appellant.
[34 NYS3d 487]

Opinion:
— Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Nilda Morales Horowitz, J.), dated June 4, 2015. The order confirmed an order of that court (Esther R. Furman, S.M.), made after a hearing, finding that the father wilfully violated a support order, and directed that he be committed to the Westchester County Correctional Facility for a period of four months unless he paid a purge amount of $10,000. By decision and order on motion dated July 29, 2015, this Court granted the father's motion to stay enforcement of the order pending hearing and determination of this appeal.
Ordered that the order dated June 4, 2015, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Pursuant to a support order dated November 29, 2012, the father was ordered to pay child support for the parties' three children, as well as spousal support. In September 2014, the mother commenced this proceeding alleging that the father wilfully violated the support order. Following a hearing, a Support Magistrate found that the father wilfully violated the support order. The Family Court confirmed that finding and directed that the father be committed to jail for a period of four months unless he paid a purge amount of $10,000. The father appeals.
The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the father's request for an adjournment (see Matter of Fusco v Fusco, 134 AD3d 1112 [2015]). In addition, contrary to the father's contention, there is no basis to disturb the court's determination directing his incarceration (see Matter of Gorsky v Kessler, 133 AD3d 854 [2015]).
Eng, P.J., Roman, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.