Matter of J.L. v D.L.
Annotate this CaseDecided on September 28, 2011
Family Court, Onondaga County
In the Matter of J.L.
against
D.L.
xx/11
Petitioner, pro se; respondent, pro se.
Michael Hanuszczak, J.
On September 1, 2011, the petitioner filed "Objections to Order," concerning an Order of Dismissal which was filed and entered on August 1, 2011. The petitioner did not file an Affidavit of Service of the Objection upon the respondent. On September 15, 2011, the Court received a Rebuttal from the respondent together with an Affidavit of Service of the Rebuttal upon the petitioner.
The petitioner objects to the Support Magistrate's dismissal of his July 7, 2011 petition to vacate the registration of a "Court Action Order," dated March 23, 2011, issued by the Hon. Anthony F. Pichera, Jr. of New Jersey. The petition to vacate was filed in accordance with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) which is codified under New York State law under Article 5-B of the Family Court Act (Sections 580-101 through 590-905). Under UIFSA, after a party files an application to register an out-of-state support order, the opposing party is notified by the Family Court that he or she has twenty days to contest the validity or the enforcement of the support order by filing a petition to vacate the registration.
In the petitioner's case, the Onondaga County Family Court sent a Notice of Registration dated June 20, 2011 concerning the registration of a "Court Action Order," dated March 23, 2011 and issued by the Hon. Anthony F. Pichera, Jr. of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part for Somerset County. The petitioner, who resides in Skaneateles, New York, filed a petition on July 7, 2011 in Onondaga County Family Court to vacate the registration, alleging that the support order was obtained by fraudulent means and that he had made partial or full payment of the required support amount.
The March 23, 2011 New Jersey order found that the petitioner had violated a November 29, 2010 order in which Judge Pichera directed the petitioner to pay support arrears amassed under previous court orders and which set forth a mandatory payment schedule. In addition, Judge Pichera denied his application for relief from the support order based upon his failure to comply with court-ordered discovery and his voluntary waiver in December, 2010 of his right to a plenary hearing on the validity of the underlying support order. Based upon his determinations in the "Court Action Order," Judge Pichera also issued a "Civil Action Warrant for the Arrest of J[redacted] L[redacted]."
On July 12, 2011, the March 23, 2011 "Court Action Order" was confirmed by the Onondaga County Family Court, and on August 1, 2011 the Support Magistrate dismissed the [*2]petition to vacate for failure to state a cause of action. In the Order of Dismissal, the Support Magistrate noted that the petitioner had previously contested the registration of a March 8, 2010 New Jersey support order on the ground that he had an action pending in New Jersey to vacate that support order based upon fraud. The Support Magistrate stated that the March 8, 2010 New Jersey support order, as amended by the December 9, 2010 decision and order of Judge Pichera, was confirmed after the petitioner refused to comply with court-ordered financial discovery. The Support Magistrate also noted that the petitioner waived his right to a plenary hearing on the validity of the New Jersey support order and that the action ended with the court finding him in violation of previous support orders as well as court-ordered discovery.
In his Objection, the petitioner argues that the underlying support orders were obtained by fraudulent means. He also argues that the support arrears as calculated by Judge Pichera are erroneous.
Section 439(e) of the Family Court Act contains the procedural requirements for making an objection to the decision of a support magistrate. One of the statutory requirements is that the objector must file an affidavit of service of the objection upon the opposing party and file that
affidavit at the same time as the objection. The petitioner did not comply with this requirement, and therefore, his Objection must be dismissed. (Star V. Frazier, 232 AD2d 570.)
However, even if this Court were to reach the substance of the petitioner's Objection, it would deny the Objection based upon the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement. Under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, an individual "is not entitled to seek the assistance of the court in the same cause from which he or she is a fugitive." (Peppin v. Lewis, 194 Misc 2d 151.) An individual may not "evade the law while simultaneously seeking its protection," and the court is permitted to dismiss that individual's pending court proceeding in such cases. (Weschler v. Weschler, 45 AD3d 470.) The following elements must be present under the doctrine: (1) the applicant must be a fugitive from justice and there must be a connection between the fugitive status and the applicant's pending action; (2) the applicant's fugitive status must work actual prejudice to the opposing party; and (3) the remedies available to the court must be inadequate to ameliorate the prejudice. (Peppin at 160.)
Until such time as Mr. L. satisfies his support obligations, he is subject to a New Jersey warrant and is, therefore, a fugitive from justice. There is a definite nexus between Mr. L.'s fugitive status and his Onondaga County Family Court petition in that he is the subject of a New Jersey arrest warrant for noncompliance with an order of support, and his application to the Onondaga County Family Court seeks to prevent enforcement of the support order. The opposing party in his petition is certainly prejudiced as the support arrears now total more than $100,000.00, according to the New Jersey court. Finally, Mr. L. has refused to cooperate with court-ordered discovery in both the New Jersey court and the Onondaga County Family Court in his own applications. In 2010, he also waived his right to a plenary hearing which was granted by Judge Pichera to determine the validity of the New Jersey support order. Therefore, this Court concludes that his actions are intended to delay or frustrate the enforcement of the support orders rather than to seek the aid of a court in determining his rightful support obligation. Under such circumstances, there is no remedy available to the petitioner which will ameliorate the prejudice to the opposing party. Therefore, the Court finds that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies to the petitioner. [*3]
Accordingly, the Objection by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. So Ordered.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
