Martinez v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martinez v. Torres

95 A.D.3d 1215, 943 N.Y.S.2d 907

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

DecidedMay 23, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 95 A.D.3d 1215 (Martinez v. Torres) 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

Martinez v. Torres, 95 A.D.3d 1215, 943 N.Y.S.2d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Joseph, J.), dated April 26, 2011, which denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Shamahs, S.M.), dated March 7, 2011, as, after a hearing, denied that branch of his petition which was to reduce the amount of arrears which accrued prior to the filing of the petition.

Ordered that the order dated April 26, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly determined that because the issues raised by the father in his objections were previously raised and decided against him on prior appeals in this matter (see Matter of Martinez v Torres, 59 AD3d 449 [2009]; Matter of Martinez v Torres, 26 AD3d 496 [2006]), reconsideration of those issues was barred by the doctrine of law of the case (see Matter of Suzuki-Peters v Peters, 37 AD3d 726 [2007]). Thus, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Lott and Sgroi, 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, Kings County (Joseph, J.), dated April 26, 2011, which denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Shamahs, S.M.), dated March 7, 2011, as, after a hearing, denied that branch of his petition which was to reduce the amount of arrears which accrued prior to the filing of the petition.

Ordered that the order dated April 26, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly determined that because the issues raised by the father in his objections were previously raised and decided against him on prior appeals in this matter (see Matter of Martinez v Torres, 59 AD3d 449 [2009]; Matter of Martinez v Torres, 26 AD3d 496 [2006]), reconsideration of those issues was barred by the doctrine of law of the case (see Matter of Suzuki-Peters v Peters, 37 AD3d 726 [2007]). Thus, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 1215, 943 N.Y.S.2d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-torres-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack