New York Law Review

Tag: Willful Non-Payment

  • Matter of Dutchess County Department of Social Services v. Anthony B., 28 N.Y.3d 760 (2017): Consecutive Jail Sentences for Willful Non-Payment of Child Support

    28 N.Y.3d 760 (2017)

    Family Court may impose consecutive six-month jail sentences for willful violations of child support orders, including the revocation of previously suspended sentences.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a Family Court could order consecutive six-month jail sentences for a father who willfully failed to pay child support, including for violations that led to previously suspended sentences. The Court held that, based on the Family Court Act, Family Courts have the authority to impose consecutive sentences for each willful violation of a child support order. This includes the ability to revoke suspended sentences and order them to be served consecutively with a new sentence for a current violation. The court emphasized the importance of enforcing child support obligations and deterring willful non-compliance.

    Facts

    A father repeatedly failed to meet court-ordered child support obligations. He was found to have willfully violated the support orders on multiple occasions. As a result, the Family Court issued two suspended orders of commitment. These were based on previous violations. In 2013, the Family Court found a third willful violation, revoked the two suspended orders, and imposed a new six-month sentence, resulting in three consecutive six-month sentences. The father did not contest the willfulness findings or claim inability to pay.

    Procedural History

    The Family Court imposed consecutive sentences. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s decision. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the case to determine the legality of the consecutive sentencing.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Family Court has the authority to impose consecutive six-month sentences for a willful failure to pay child support, including when revoking prior suspended sentences of commitment.

    Holding

    Yes, because the Family Court Act grants Family Courts the authority to impose consecutive sentences for each willful violation of a support order, including when a previously suspended sentence is revoked.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals analyzed the Family Court Act, emphasizing the statute’s aim to enforce child support obligations. The court highlighted that the act empowers Family Courts to utilize various enforcement tools, including commitment to jail for up to six months for willful non-compliance. The Court referenced a prior case, Matter of Walker v. Walker, which upheld the imposition of consecutive sentences for violations of orders of protection. The court found that the language in the Family Court Act regarding support orders is similar and permits consecutive sentences. The court also noted that the act provides protection for those unable to pay, stating that the father in this case never claimed inability to pay.

    Practical Implications

    This case clarifies that Family Courts in New York have broad discretion to impose consecutive sentences for repeated failures to pay child support. Attorneys should advise clients that willful non-compliance can lead to significant jail time, particularly where there is a history of non-payment and suspended sentences. This ruling underscores the need for parents to comply with support orders and the potential severity of consequences for non-compliance, including possible consecutive sentences if there is a pattern of violations. This reinforces the importance of timely payments, seeking modifications if unable to pay, and the willingness of the courts to enforce child support obligations vigorously.

  • People v. Amorosi, 96 N.Y.2d 180 (2001): Probation Revocation and Restitution

    96 N.Y.2d 180 (2001)

    A defendant’s probation can be revoked and a sentence of imprisonment imposed for failure to pay restitution, a condition of probation, where the defendant willfully refused to pay and had the ability to do so.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of petit larceny and sentenced to probation with a condition of restitution. After failing to make any restitution payments, the defendant’s probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to imprisonment. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation, holding that the protections under CPL 420.10 (3)-(5) regarding imprisonment for failure to pay restitution did not apply because the defendant’s imprisonment resulted from a probation violation, not directly from the failure to pay. The court emphasized the willful nature of the defendant’s non-payment and his admitted ability to pay.

    Facts

    Defendant was convicted of stealing over $6,500 from his employer. He was sentenced to three years’ probation, with a condition that he make full restitution within two and a half years. He was given a written copy of his conditions, including full restitution, which he signed. He was also instructed to avoid drugs and alcohol, submit to drug testing, and report to a probation officer.

    Procedural History

    The Town Court convicted the defendant of petit larceny and sentenced him. The same court later held a probation revocation hearing. The County Court affirmed the revocation. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed and affirmed the County Court’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the substantive and procedural protections in CPL 420.10 (3)-(5), limiting imprisonment for failure to pay restitution, apply when a defendant’s probation is revoked due to failure to pay restitution, a condition of that probation.

    Holding

    No, because CPL 420.10 (3)-(5) are inapplicable where the imprisonment results from a violation of probation, not directly from a failure to pay restitution, provided the defendant willfully refused to pay restitution when he had the ability to do so.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the purpose of restitution is to make victims whole and rehabilitate offenders. Restitution is often used with probation because property crime offenders are often capable of making restitution. The court distinguished the case from situations where a defendant is directly imprisoned for failure to pay restitution under CPL 420.10 (3) and (4). Here, the defendant’s imprisonment resulted from violating the terms of his probation, specifically his willful failure to make restitution despite having the means to do so.

    The court cited Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), stating that “depriving probationers of conditional freedom based simply on their indigence would be an invidious denial to one class of defendants of a substantial benefit available to another.” However, the court emphasized that “if a probationer has willfully refused to pay restitution when he or she can pay, the State is justified in revoking probation and using imprisonment as an appropriate penalty for the offense.”

    The court noted that the defendant could have sought resentencing under CPL 420.10 (5) if he was unable to pay, but he never claimed an inability to pay and even offered to make restitution shortly before the revocation hearing, demonstrating a contemporaneous ability to pay. The court concluded that the Town Court was within its rights to revoke probation under CPL 410.70 and impose a sentence of imprisonment as authorized by Penal Law § 60.01(4) following the probation revocation. The court stated, “After defendant failed to make any payment of restitution within the allotted two and one-half years, his probation officer sought a declaration of delinquency under CPL 410.30. The court held a revocation hearing as prescribed by CPL 410.70; defendant was given notice of the hearing, appeared with counsel and was heard by the court (CPL 410.70 [3], [4]). At the conclusion of the hearing, the court determined that defendant had violated a condition of probation, revoked his probation (CPL 410.70 [5]) and sentenced him to a year in jail, as authorized by Penal Law § 60.01 (4).”