Burke v. Palermo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burke v. Palermo

190 A.D.2d 1075, 593 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1320

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 5, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 1075 (Burke v. Palermo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burke v. Palermo, 190 A.D.2d 1075, 593 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition reinstated. Memorandum: Fam[1076]*1076ily Court erred by affirming the order of a Hearing Examiner that dismissed petitioner’s support petition with prejudice. Once petitioner stopped receiving public assistance, she was entitled to institute a support proceeding and to receive a de novo hearing on the amount of support to which she was entitled at that time (Family Ct Act § 571 [3] [b]). Petitioner should not have been relegated to bringing a petition to modify a prior support order obtained by the Department of Social Services, because petitioner was not a party to that action nor was she bound by the order issued therein (see, Matter of Cathleen P. v Gary P., 63 NY2d 805, 807; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N. Y. v Snell, 182 AD2d 474; Matter of Simone Q. v Wayne R., 135 AD2d 944; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N. Y. v Bailey, 79 AD2d 572). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Kohout, J. — Child Support.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition reinstated. Memorandum: Fam[1076]*1076ily Court erred by affirming the order of a Hearing Examiner that dismissed petitioner’s support petition with prejudice. Once petitioner stopped receiving public assistance, she was entitled to institute a support proceeding and to receive a de novo hearing on the amount of support to which she was entitled at that time (Family Ct Act § 571 [3] [b]). Petitioner should not have been relegated to bringing a petition to modify a prior support order obtained by the Department of Social Services, because petitioner was not a party to that action nor was she bound by the order issued therein (see, Matter of Cathleen P. v Gary P., 63 NY2d 805, 807; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N. Y. v Snell, 182 AD2d 474; Matter of Simone Q. v Wayne R., 135 AD2d 944; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N. Y. v Bailey, 79 AD2d 572). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Kohout, J. — Child Support.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 1075, 593 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-palermo-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack