Dunbar v. Hunter
This text of 131 Misc. 2d 706 (Dunbar v. Hunter) 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.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
The respondent, by his attorney, has filed an objection to [707]*707the hearing examiner’s denial of his motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]).
Family Court Act § 439 (e) provides in part that the "determination of a hearing examiner shall include findings of fact and a final order * * * The parties may submit to a judge within thirty days after entry of the order specific written objections to such order * * * 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). We hold that no objection as of right lies from an interlocutory order
Assuming, arguendo, that the court may entertain the objection as a matter of discretion, I decline to do so.
The objection is dismissed, with leave to renew on an objection to the final order.
No order denying the motion to dismiss has been entered. In view of (a) the recent amendments to Family Court Act § 439 and related sections (see, L 1985, ch 809, eff Nov. 1, 1985) and (b) the fact that a hearing is scheduled for April 7, 1986, we address the propriety of filing objections to interlocutory "orders”, rather than hold or dismiss the objection pending entry of an order. Petitioner shall submit an order denying the motion with the order dismissing the objections prior to April 7, 1986.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
131 Misc. 2d 706, 501 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1986 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunbar-v-hunter-nycfamct-1986.