JOHN SS. v. AMY SS

Kavanagh, J.

At the close of the father's testimony, the mother moved for a directed verdict dismissing the petition arguing that there was insufficient evidence to show that she had willfully violated the stipulated order because no proof had been presented that the father had advised his attorney of his new mailing address each time that he had been transferred within the state's correctional system. Family Court, while denying the motion for a directed verdict, decided to dismiss the petition with a finding on the merits that the mother had not willfully violated the stipulated order. The father now appeals and we affirm.

In deciding the mother's motion for a directed verdict, Family Court was required to "accept the [father's] evidence as true and afford the [father] every favorable inference that could reasonably be drawn from that evidence, including resolving all credibility questions in the [father's] favor" ( Matter of David WW. v Laureen QQ., 42 AD3d 685, 686; see Matter of Stone v Wyant, 8 AD3d 1046, 1046). The father's testimony established that he did not receive the photographs as required by the stipulated order. However, the father admitted that on at least one occasion when he was transferred, he was not able to inform his attorney of his new address so that the attorney could, in turn, notify the mother where she should send the photographs as required by the order. Without such a showing, the father could not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the mother willfully violated the stipulated order ( see Matter of Cobane v Cobane, 57 AD3d 1320, 1322; Matter of Aurelia v Aurelia, 56 AD3d 963, 964; Matter of Blaize E., 48 AD3d 1007, 1008), and, therefore, Family Court properly dismissed the petition.

To the extent not specifically addressed herein, the father's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.