Callahan v. Bucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Callahan v. Bucci

207 A.D.2d 731, 617 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8986

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 731 (Callahan v. Bucci) 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

Callahan v. Bucci, 207 A.D.2d 731, 617 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.), entered September 10, 1993 which, insofar as appealed from, denied respondent’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order of June 23, 1993, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We reject respondent’s argument that the Family Court is without authority to overlook or fashion a cure for technical defects in the filing of objections pursuant to Family Court Act § 439 (e). Here, petitioner’s attorney made a good faith attempt to comply with the statute, and any prejudice to respondent was cured by vacating the order entered upon petitioner’s objections and giving respondent the opportunity to respond thereto. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.), entered September 10, 1993 which, insofar as appealed from, denied respondent’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order of June 23, 1993, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We reject respondent’s argument that the Family Court is without authority to overlook or fashion a cure for technical defects in the filing of objections pursuant to Family Court Act § 439 (e). Here, petitioner’s attorney made a good faith attempt to comply with the statute, and any prejudice to respondent was cured by vacating the order entered upon petitioner’s objections and giving respondent the opportunity to respond thereto. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 731, 617 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callahan-v-bucci-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack