| Matter of Corry v Corry |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01216 [59 AD3d 618] |
| February 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Pamela Corry, Respondent, v Jon Corry,Appellant. |
—[*1] Pamela Corry, Suffern, N.Y., respondent pro se.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals (1)from findings of fact of the Family Court (Kaufman, S.M.), dated December 10, 2007, (2), aslimited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, also dated December 10, 2007,as determined that he willfully violated a prior order of support, (3) from an order of the samecourt, also dated December 10, 2007, which directed the entry of a money judgment in favor ofthe mother in the sum of $14,646, and (4), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order ofthe same court (Apotheker, J.) dated January 28, 2008, as confirmed so much of the order datedDecember 10, 2007, as, after a hearing, determined that he willfully violated a prior order ofsupport.
Ordered that the appeal from the findings of fact and the appeals from the orders datedDecember 10, 2007, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated January 28, 2008, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, withoutcosts or disbursements.
The appeal from the findings of fact must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from findings offact (see Family Ct Act § 1112). The appeal from so much of the order datedDecember 10, 2007, as determined that the father willfully violated a prior order of support mustbe dismissed, as that [*2]portion of the order was superseded bythe order dated January 28, 2008. The appeal from the order directing the entry of a moneyjudgment must be dismissed, as there is no indication that objections were ever filed as requiredby statute (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Feliz v Rojas, 21 AD3d 373 [2005]).
The mother's proof that the father failed to pay child support as ordered constituted primafacie evidence of the father's willful violation of the support order (see Family Ct Act§ 454 [3] [a]; Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63 [1995]; Matter of Greene v Holmes, 31 AD3d760 [2006]). The father failed to rebut this prima facie evidence of willfulness by offeringcompetent, credible evidence of his inability to pay (see Matter of Powers v Powers, 86NY2d at 69-70; Matter of Rawlins vWilliams, 27 AD3d 757 [2006]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly determinedthat he willfully violated the prior order of support. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Belen, JJ.,concur.