Campbell v. O'Neil

266 A.D.2d 538, 699 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12299
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 29, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 538 (Campbell v. O'Neil) 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
Campbell v. O'Neil, 266 A.D.2d 538, 699 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Putnam County (Braatz, J.), entered June 8, 1998, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Winslow, H.E.), entered April 13, 1998, after a hearing, dismissing the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the objections to the order of the Hearing Examiner are sustained, the order entered April 13, 1998, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Putnam County, for a new determination in accordance herewith.

The instant proceeding was commenced by the filing of a violation of support petition against the respondent father to recover arrears of child support pursuant to an order that was issued in Connecticut in 1986 and registered in New York in 1992. The Hearing Examiner erred in placing the burden of demonstrating the validity of the foreign support order on the petitioner (see, Family Ct Act § 580-607 [a]). The Connecticut order was confirmed by operation of law when it was registered without objection in 1992 (see, Family Ct Act § 580-606. [b]). That the order may have been vacated, suspended, or modified by a later order can be raised by the respondent as a defense to the enforcement of the Connecticut order (see, Family Ct Act § 580-607 [a] [3]). Accordingly, dismissal of the proceeding was improper, and the matter must be remitted for a hearing and determination of the merits of the petition. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Barclay v. Hutchinson
129 A.D.3d 953 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Barros v. Vila
271 A.D.2d 711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 A.D.2d 538, 699 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-oneil-nyappdiv-1999.