Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

Cable v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 28, 2005

23 A.D.3d 652; 804 N.Y.S.2d 429

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Toumazatos v. Toumazatos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Darling v. Darling (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Matter of Wyoming County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Kates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Matter of Deshotel v. Mandile (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Washington v. Edwards (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
McGuire v. McGuire (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*653In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, Thomas L. Hill appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Blass, J.), dated March 15, 2005, which confirmed a determination of the same court (Buetow, S.M.) dated February 25, 2005, finding, after a hearing, that he willfully failed to pay court-ordered child support, adjudicated him in contempt, and thereupon committed him to a period of incarceration of six months unless he purged himself of contempt by paying the sum of $19,774.65.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A Support Magistrate may assume an active role in the examination of witnesses where proper or necessary to facilitate or expedite the orderly progress of the hearing (see Bielicki v T.J. Bentey, Inc., 267 AD2d 266, 267 [1999]; Givens v Sinert, 243 AD2d 443, 444 [1997]; Accardi v City of New York, 121 AD2d 489, 491 [1986]). As the Support Magistrate asked questions in order to clarify the appellant’s testimony, she did not unduly interfere with the presentation of the appellant’s case or indicate any partiality or bias which would warrant reversal.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.