Herman v. Herman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herman v. Herman

11 A.D.3d 536, 782 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12004

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 12, 2004·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Brennan, J.), dated September 11, 2002, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Cahn, H.E.), dated May 15, 2002, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed the entry of a judgment against him for child and spousal support arrears in the sum of $50,473.03.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Family Court Act § 439 (e) provides that an aggrieved party may submit to a Family Court judge specific written objections to the final order of the support magistrate (formerly hearing examiner) within 35 days after the mailing of the order to such party. Since the husband did not timely submit written objections to the hearing examiner’s final order of support, the Family Court properly refused to consider the objections on this ground (see Matter of Mayeri v Mayeri, 279 AD2d 473 [2001]; Matter of Rinaldi v Rinaldi, 239 AD2d 506 [1997]). Florio, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, 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 husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Brennan, J.), dated September 11, 2002, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Cahn, H.E.), dated May 15, 2002, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed the entry of a judgment against him for child and spousal support arrears in the sum of $50,473.03.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Family Court Act § 439 (e) provides that an aggrieved party may submit to a Family Court judge specific written objections to the final order of the support magistrate (formerly hearing examiner) within 35 days after the mailing of the order to such party. Since the husband did not timely submit written objections to the hearing examiner’s final order of support, the Family Court properly refused to consider the objections on this ground (see Matter of Mayeri v Mayeri, 279 AD2d 473 [2001]; Matter of Rinaldi v Rinaldi, 239 AD2d 506 [1997]). Florio, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Herman v. Herman, 11 A.D.3d 536, 782 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

11 A.D.3d 536 (Herman v. Herman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related