Majority
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Michael L. Hanuszczak, J.), entered March 21, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order, inter alia, found respondent to be in willful violation of an order of support.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings on the petition.
Memorandum: Petitioner mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act based on respondent father’s alleged willful violation of a child support order. The Support Magistrate entered an order in favor of petitioner upon respondent’s alleged default, and Family Court confirmed that order. As a preliminary matter, we agree with respondent that this appeal is properly before us. Although respondent’s brief on appeal focuses on the erroneous determination of the Support Magistrate that respondent had defaulted in his appearance, the order of the Support Magistrate, which recommended commitment, had “no force and effect until confirmed by a judge of the [Family] [C]ourt” (Family Ct Act § 439 [a]; see Matter of Huard v Lugo, 81 AD3d 1265 , 1266 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 710 [2011]). Thus, the order that is on appeal is the order entered by the court and, inasmuch as respondent appeared before the court, that order was not an order entered on his default.
We further agree with respondent that the court erred in confirming the Support Magistrate’s order inasmuch as the Support Magistrate erred in finding respondent in default. Al
Inasmuch as the Support Magistrate erred in determining that respondent had defaulted and the colloquy with petitioner did not constitute the requisite fact-finding hearing necessary to develop a factual basis for a finding of willful violation, we conclude that the court erred in confirming the order of the Support Magistrate. “In the absence of a fact-finding hearing, there was no factual support for the finding that” respondent willfully violated the support order (Matter of Bradley M.M. [Michael M. — Cindy M.], 98 AD3d 1257 , 1258 [2012]; see Matter of Shemeco D., 265 AD2d 860 , 860 [1999]). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings on the petition. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Carni and Lindley, JJ.
Cases cited
- Huard v. Lugo 81 AD3d 1265 at 1266 p. 1638
- Erie County Department of Social Services ex rel. Wiser v. Thompson 91 AD3d 1327 at 1328 p. 1639
- David A.A. v. Maryann A. 41 AD3d 1300 at 1300 p. 1639
- In re Shemeco D. 265 AD2d 860 at 860 p. 1639