Commissioner of Social Services v. Zouhier B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioner of Social Services v. Zouhier B.

84 A.D.3d 438, 921 N.Y.S.2d 523

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

DecidedMay 3, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 A.D.3d 438 (Commissioner of Social Services v. Zouhier B.) 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

Commissioner of Social Services v. Zouhier B., 84 A.D.3d 438, 921 N.Y.S.2d 523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about April 8, 2010, which confirmed the support magistrate’s March 24, 2010 order finding that respondent willfully ■ violated the court’s December 5, 2007 support order, and placed respondent on probation for six months, upon certain terms and conditions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s claim that he was not afforded a hearing as mandated by Family Court Act § 454 is unpreserved and thus is not properly before this Court (see e.g. Matter of Lindsey BB. [Ruth BB.], 72 AD3d 1162, 1164 [2010]; Matter of Brittni K., 297 AD2d 236, 240 [2002]). In any event, respondent participated in the hearing before the magistrate and thus waived this claim (see Matter of Nilda S. v Dawn K., 302 AD2d 237, 238 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 512 [2003]). Significantly, respondent was represented by counsel, who argued on his behalf at the hearing before the magistrate, and presented evidence to the magistrate. Thus, respondent was afforded a full and fair hearing, and was given the opportunity to submit evidence in his defense. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about April 8, 2010, which confirmed the support magistrate’s March 24, 2010 order finding that respondent willfully ■ violated the court’s December 5, 2007 support order, and placed respondent on probation for six months, upon certain terms and conditions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s claim that he was not afforded a hearing as mandated by Family Court Act § 454 is unpreserved and thus is not properly before this Court (see e.g. Matter of Lindsey BB. [Ruth BB.], 72 AD3d 1162, 1164 [2010]; Matter of Brittni K., 297 AD2d 236, 240 [2002]). In any event, respondent participated in the hearing before the magistrate and thus waived this claim (see Matter of Nilda S. v Dawn K., 302 AD2d 237, 238 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 512 [2003]). Significantly, respondent was represented by counsel, who argued on his behalf at the hearing before the magistrate, and presented evidence to the magistrate. Thus, respondent was afforded a full and fair hearing, and was given the opportunity to submit evidence in his defense. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.3d 438, 921 N.Y.S.2d 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-of-social-services-v-zouhier-b-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack