| Matter of Jasco v Alvira |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04187 [107 AD3d 1460] |
| June 7, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Janie Jasco, Respondent, v David Alvira,Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Rosalie Bailey, J.), enteredApril 23, 2012. The order, among other things, confirmed the finding of the SupportMagistrate that respondent willfully violated a prior order of support.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed withoutcosts.
Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order confirming the finding ofthe Support Magistrate that he was in contempt of court based on his willful violation ofa prior order of support, and incarcerating him. Initially, we agree with the father that,although he has completed serving the sentence of incarceration, the appeal is not mootbecause of the "enduring consequences [that] potentially flow from an order adjudicatinga party in civil contempt" (Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch, 87 NY2d 862, 863[1995]; see Matter of Storelli vStorelli, 101 AD3d 1787, 1788 [2012]).
The father's further contention that Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction isin actuality a contention that the petition was not legally sufficient because it failed toallege that he willfully failed to comply with a prior order requiring him to pay childsupport. The father failed to preserve that contention for our review (see generally Matter of Irene C.[Reina M.], 68 AD3d 416, 416 [2009]; Matter of Toshea C.J., 62 AD3d 587, 587 [2009]; Matter of Kimberly Vanessa J.,37 AD3d 185, 185 [2007]), and in any event it is without merit (see generallyMatter of Child Support Enforcement Unit v John M., 283 AD2d 40, 43 [2001]).The petition included, in capital letters and large bold type on the front page, the"warning" that a hearing was being requested, the purpose of which was to punish thefather for contempt of court. The "warning" further advised the father that the sanction ofimprisonment could be imposed. Furthermore, the father admitted that he was in willfulviolation of the prior order, and the Support Magistrate, "on more than one occasionprior to the [admission by the father that he violated the prior order,] confirmed that thepetition was for a willful violation of the prior order[ ]" (Matter of Santana v Gonzalez,90 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2011]).
We reject the further contention of the father that he was not afforded effectiveassistance of counsel (seeMatter of Rothfuss v Thomas, 6 AD3d 1145, 1146 [2004], lv denied 3NY3d 603 [2004]; Matter [*2]of Amanda L., 302AD2d 1004, 1004 [2003]). We have considered the father's remaining contention andconclude that it is without merit. Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra andLindley, JJ.