Fokine v. Prisciantelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fokine v. Prisciantelli

208 A.D.2d 534, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9237

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 3, 1994·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), dated October 29, 1991, as, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination made by order of the same court, dated August 19, 1991, which dismissed the father’s written objections to an order of support of the same court, entered June 12,1991.

Ordered that the order dated October 29, 1991, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court properly dismissed the appellant’s written objections to the order of support because the appellant failed to file proof of service upon the opposing party with the court at the time of filing the objections (see, Family Ct Act § 439 [e]). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), dated October 29, 1991, as, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination made by order of the same court, dated August 19, 1991, which dismissed the father’s written objections to an order of support of the same court, entered June 12,1991.

Ordered that the order dated October 29, 1991, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court properly dismissed the appellant’s written objections to the order of support because the appellant failed to file proof of service upon the opposing party with the court at the time of filing the objections (see, Family Ct Act § 439 [e]). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Fokine v. Prisciantelli, 208 A.D.2d 534, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

208 A.D.2d 534 (Fokine v. Prisciantelli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related