John v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

John v. King

222 A.D.2d 676, 636 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13922

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 676 (John v. King) 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

John v. King, 222 A.D.2d 676, 636 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated July 21, 1994, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Spegele, H.E.), dated April 22, 1994, which, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to its prior order directing the entry of a judgment against him in the sum of $19,820 for child support arrears.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court had jurisdiction over this proceeding (see, Family Ct Act arts 4, 5; § 511).

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Friedmann 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 father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated July 21, 1994, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Spegele, H.E.), dated April 22, 1994, which, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to its prior order directing the entry of a judgment against him in the sum of $19,820 for child support arrears.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court had jurisdiction over this proceeding (see, Family Ct Act arts 4, 5; § 511).

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 676, 636 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-v-king-nyappdiv-1995.