Matter of Lew v Sobel
2012 NY Slip Op 00210 [91 AD3d 648]
Jnury 10, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 29, 2012


In the Matter of Mark Lew, Respondent,
v
Gail Sobel,Appellant.

[*1]Law Offices of Clifford J. Petroske, P.C., Bohemia, N.Y., for appellant.

Wand, Powers & Goody, LLP, Huntington, N.Y. (Jennifer H. Goody of counsel), forrespondent.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 5, the motherappeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ross, J.), dated October 14, 2010,which, inter alia, granted that branch of the father's motion which was for leave to pay a certainportion of his child support obligation to the mother's attorney for deposit into an escrowaccount, instead of directly to the mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A custodial parent's deliberate frustration of, or active interference with, the noncustodialparent's visitation rights can warrant the suspension of future child support payments (seeDomestic Relations Law § 241; Ledgin v Ledgin, 36 AD3d 669 [2007]; Hiross v Hiross,224 AD2d 662, 663 [1996]). Pursuant to a prior order of this Court (see Matter of Lew v Sobel, 46 AD3d893 [2007]), the father paid one half of his child support obligation to the mother and onehalf to the mother's attorney, to be held in an escrow account until the mother could certify, to thesatisfaction of the Supreme Court, her compliance with the visitation provisions of an order ofthe Supreme Court, dated April 28, 2006, and the absence of her interference with the father'svisitation rights. In February 2010 the father moved, inter alia, for leave to pay, to the mother'sattorney for deposit into the escrow account, the one half of his child support obligation which hehad been paying directly to the mother. In light of the father's showing to the Supreme Court thatthe mother continued to deliberately interfere with his visitation rights, the Supreme Courtprovidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the father's motion (seeDomestic Relations Law § 241).

The mother's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, A.P.J., Balkin, Chambers andRoman, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.