Futterman v. Futterman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Futterman v. Futterman

258 A.D.2d 576, 682 N.Y.S.2d 893

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 576 (Futterman v. Futterman) 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

Futterman v. Futterman, 258 A.D.2d 576, 682 N.Y.S.2d 893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Brennan, J.), dated August 21, 1997, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Kahlon, H.E.), dated May 14, 1997, which, after a hearing, directed him to pay the sum of $13,840.19 in arrears owed under the parties’ judgment of divorce.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court did not err in denying his objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order, which required him to pay arrears that he conceded he owed under the parties’ judgment of divorce.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Brennan, J.), dated August 21, 1997, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Kahlon, H.E.), dated May 14, 1997, which, after a hearing, directed him to pay the sum of $13,840.19 in arrears owed under the parties’ judgment of divorce.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court did not err in denying his objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order, which required him to pay arrears that he conceded he owed under the parties’ judgment of divorce.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 576, 682 N.Y.S.2d 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/futterman-v-futterman-nyappdiv-1999.