Canfield v. Canfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Canfield v. Canfield

185 A.D.2d 611, 587 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9121

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 185 A.D.2d 611 (Canfield v. Canfield) 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

Canfield v. Canfield, 185 A.D.2d 611, 587 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Chautauqua County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Family Court erred in dismissing as untimely respondent’s objections to the order of the Hearing Examiner. Pursuant to Family Court Act § 439 (e), respondent had 30 days from the entry of the order to file his objections. Service with notice of entry is required to commence the running of that period (see, Matter of Stone v Schlegal, 132 Mise 2d 808, 809; see generally, Cultural Ctr. Commn. v Kokoritsis, 103 AD2d 1018). The Hearing Examiner’s order was entered on August 28, 1990, and respondent’s objections were not filed until December 10, 1990. The record, however, fails to establish that respondent was ever properly served with the order (see, CPLR 2103 [b]). Thus, petitioner failed to show that respondent’s objections were untimely. (Appeal from Order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Kelly, J. — Child Support.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Fallon, 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 matter remitted to Chautauqua County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Family Court erred in dismissing as untimely respondent’s objections to the order of the Hearing Examiner. Pursuant to Family Court Act § 439 (e), respondent had 30 days from the entry of the order to file his objections. Service with notice of entry is required to commence the running of that period (see, Matter of Stone v Schlegal, 132 Mise 2d 808, 809; see generally, Cultural Ctr. Commn. v Kokoritsis, 103 AD2d 1018). The Hearing Examiner’s order was entered on August 28, 1990, and respondent’s objections were not filed until December 10, 1990. The record, however, fails to establish that respondent was ever properly served with the order (see, CPLR 2103 [b]). Thus, petitioner failed to show that respondent’s objections were untimely. (Appeal from Order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Kelly, J. — Child Support.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 611, 587 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canfield-v-canfield-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack