Burry v. Raisbeck

NYC Family Court

Burry v. Raisbeck

159 Misc. 2d 488

CourtNew York City Family Court

DecidedSeptember 30, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 159 Misc. 2d 488 (Burry v. Raisbeck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Family Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burry v. Raisbeck, 159 Misc. 2d 488 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Bryan Hedges, J.

The respondent, by his attorney, has filed an objection to the Hearing Examiner’s denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

[489]*489Family Court Act § 439 (e) provides in part that the "determination of a hearing examiner shall include findings of fact and a final order * * * Specific written objections to such [final] order may be submitted by either party to the court * * * The final order of a hearing examiner, after objections * * * have been reviewed by a judge, may be appealed pursuant to article eleven of this act” (emphasis added). An appeal from the final order may bring up for review "any non-final judgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment” (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

No objection as of right lies from an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss a paternity proceeding. (Matter of Dunbar v Hunter, 131 Misc 2d 706; see also, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a] [generally limiting appeals as of right to dispositional orders].) As such, respondent’s objection to the Hearing Examiner’s interlocutory order is hereby dismissed, with leave to renew on an objection to the final order.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Bryan Hedges, J.

The respondent, by his attorney, has filed an objection to the Hearing Examiner’s denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

[489]*489Family Court Act § 439 (e) provides in part that the "determination of a hearing examiner shall include findings of fact and a final order * * * Specific written objections to such [final] order may be submitted by either party to the court * * * The final order of a hearing examiner, after objections * * * have been reviewed by a judge, may be appealed pursuant to article eleven of this act” (emphasis added). An appeal from the final order may bring up for review "any non-final judgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment” (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

No objection as of right lies from an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss a paternity proceeding. (Matter of Dunbar v Hunter, 131 Misc 2d 706; see also, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a] [generally limiting appeals as of right to dispositional orders].) As such, respondent’s objection to the Hearing Examiner’s interlocutory order is hereby dismissed, with leave to renew on an objection to the final order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 Misc. 2d 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burry-v-raisbeck-nycfamct-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack