| Matter of Larrier v Williams |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03852 [84 AD3d 805] |
| May 3, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Doriel Larrier, Respondent, v Lloyd G.Williams, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from(1) findings of fact of the Family Court, Queens County (Blaustein, S.M.), dated May 4, 2010,made after a hearing, finding that he willfully violated an order of support of the same courtdated September 27, 2007, and (2) an order of commitment of the same court (Lubow, J.), datedJune 11, 2010, which, upon an order of the same court, also dated June 11, 2010, in effect,confirmed the finding of willfulness and committed him to the New York City Department ofCorrection for a term of imprisonment of six months unless he paid the sum of $7,500 for childsupport.
Ordered that the appeal from the findings of fact is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as no appeal lies from findings of fact (see Family Ct Act § 1112);and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of commitment as committed the father tothe New York City Department of Correction for a term of imprisonment of six months isdismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of imprisonment hasexpired (see Matter of Heinz vFaljean, 57 AD3d 665 [2008]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order of commitment is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
The father contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at a hearing todetermine whether he willfully violated an order of support dated September 27, 2007(see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [vi]; § 454 [3] [a]; Matter of Scott v Scott, 62 AD3d714 [2009]; Matter of Er-MeiY., 29 AD3d 1013 [2006]). Contrary to the father's contentions, viewed in totality, therecord reveals that he received meaningful representation (see Matter of St. Lawrence County Dept. of Social Servs. v Pratt, 80AD3d 826 [2011]). He has not established that any of the alleged deficiencies constitutedanything other than legitimate, albeit unsuccessful, trial strategy (see Matter of Lewis v Cross, 80 AD3d835 [2011]; Matter of Chilbert vSoler, 77 AD3d 1405 [2010]). Accordingly, we affirm the order of commitment insofaras reviewed. Dillon, J.P., Covello, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.