## Facts

- Emma Walker obtained a Family Court order of protection against her former husband, Fred Walker.
- After multiple violations, Family Court in 1993 committed Fred to jail and suspended an additional nine-month commitment for other violations.
- Family Court then issued a new order of protection directing Fred to have no contact with Emma.
- While incarcerated, Fred sent Emma three separate written communications.
- Emma filed violation petitions; after a hearing, Family Court found three distinct willful violations, revoked the suspended nine-month commitment, and imposed three consecutive six-month jail terms under Family Court Act § 846-a, for a total incarceration period of 27 months.

## Issues

1. Whether Family Court Act § 846-a authorizes consecutive six-month jail commitments for separate and distinct violations of a single order of protection, or limits incarceration to a single six-month term regardless of the number of violations.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division.
- The court held that Family Court is not generally barred from imposing, in prudent and appropriate discretion, a separate jail commitment of up to six months for each separate and distinct willful violation of an order of protection, to be served consecutively.
- The three consecutive six-month commitments, along with the revoked suspended nine-month commitment, were upheld.

## Legal Principles

- Under Family Court Act § 846-a, the phrase authorizing jail “for a term not to exceed six months” sets a maximum per willful violation, not an aggregate cap for all violations of the same order.
- Absent express statutory language forbidding consecutive commitments, courts may impose consecutive terms for multiple distinct contempts based on separate acts of disobedience.
- The enforcement provisions for orders of protection should be construed to advance protective and deterrent purposes in family-offense matters, including effective sanctions for repeated violations.
- The authority to impose consecutive terms is discretionary; it permits cumulative commitments where separate violations are found.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals upheld consecutive six-month jail terms under Family Court Act § 846-a for separate willful violations of a single order of protection, rejecting an interpretation that would cap incarceration at six months regardless of repeated, distinct violations.


Matter of Walker v. Walker, 86 N.Y.2d 624 (N.Y. 1995)