Hidary v. Hidary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hidary v. Hidary

79 A.D.3d 880, 912 N.Y.S.2d 435

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 880 (Hidary v. Hidary) 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

Hidary v. Hidary, 79 A.D.3d 880, 912 N.Y.S.2d 435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Fasone, S.M.), dated February 23, 2009, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation, and awarded the mother an attorney’s fee in the principal sum of $14,440, and (2) an order of the same court (Freeman, J.), dated October 9, 2009, which denied his objections to the order dated February 23, 2009.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 23, 2009, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated October 9, 2009; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 9, 2009, is affirmed; and it is further,

[881]*881Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The father’s proof of service of his objections to the order dated February 23, 2009, was deficient (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; CPLR 306). Thus, the father failed to satisfy a condition precedent to filing timely written objections to the Support Magistrate’s order, and the Family Court properly denied his objections on that ground (see Matter of Chukwuogo v Chukwuogo, 46 AD3d 558, 558-559 [2007]). Consequently, the father waived his right to appellate review of the merits of his objections (see Matter of Simpson v Gelin, 48 AD3d 693 [2008]; Matter of Star v Frazer, 232 AD2d 570, 571 [1996]). Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Balkin and Chambers, 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 (1) an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Fasone, S.M.), dated February 23, 2009, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation, and awarded the mother an attorney’s fee in the principal sum of $14,440, and (2) an order of the same court (Freeman, J.), dated October 9, 2009, which denied his objections to the order dated February 23, 2009.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 23, 2009, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated October 9, 2009; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 9, 2009, is affirmed; and it is further,

[881]*881Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The father’s proof of service of his objections to the order dated February 23, 2009, was deficient (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; CPLR 306). Thus, the father failed to satisfy a condition precedent to filing timely written objections to the Support Magistrate’s order, and the Family Court properly denied his objections on that ground (see Matter of Chukwuogo v Chukwuogo, 46 AD3d 558, 558-559 [2007]). Consequently, the father waived his right to appellate review of the merits of his objections (see Matter of Simpson v Gelin, 48 AD3d 693 [2008]; Matter of Star v Frazer, 232 AD2d 570, 571 [1996]). Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 880, 912 N.Y.S.2d 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hidary-v-hidary-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack