Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In the Matter of Kimberly Marvin v. Jeffrey L. Kilmer

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department


October 5, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF KIMBERLY MARVIN,
PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
v.
JEFFREY L. KILMER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY L. KILMER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
KIMBERLY MARVIN, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Marianne Furfure, A.J.), entered March 16, 2010.

Matter of Matter of Marvin v Kilmer

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 5, 2012

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

The order, among other things, held Jeffery L. Kilmer in contempt of court.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly found respondent-petitioner (father) in contempt of court based upon his willful violation of a prior order directing the return of the parties' son to the custody of petitioner-respondent (mother). "A careful review of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, fully supports [the court's finding that the father willfully] violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of the court" (Labanowski v Labanowski, 4 AD3d 690, 694). The evidence establishes that the father was aware of the terms of the prior order and, in the court's words, "he put in motion the events which resulted in the child being removed from [the mother's] home and placed in [the father's] home" (see Matter of Daniels v Guntert, 256 AD2d 940, 942). We reject the father's further contention that the court erred in conducting a confidential interview with the parties' daughter (see generally Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270, 272) and, in any event, there is no indication that the court relied on that interview in rendering its decision herein (see Matter of Bernelle P., 45 NY2d 937, 938). Entered: October 5, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

20121005

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.