Matter of Bianca J. v. Dwayne C.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Bianca J. v. Dwayne C.A.

136 A.D.3d 450, 23 N.Y.S.3d 892

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 4, 2016·No. 98 97·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about January 7, 2014, which denied respondent’s objections to an order, entered on or about October 30, 2013 (Support Magistrate Karen D. Kolomechuk), dismissing his petition for a downward modification of a November 23, 2011 child support order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Support Magistrate harbored a bias against him (see CPLR 5501; Matter of Gina C. v Augusto C., 116 AD3d 478, 479 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 905 [2014]), and we decline to review his claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find respondent’s contention unfounded. We note that he has failed to cite to an actual ruling which demonstrated bias (see Anderson v Harris, 68 AD3d 472, 473 [1st Dept 2009]). The court properly exercised its discretion in denying respondent’s motion for an adjournment (see Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283 [1984]).

Concur — Saxe, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about January 7, 2014, which denied respondent’s objections to an order, entered on or about October 30, 2013 (Support Magistrate Karen D. Kolomechuk), dismissing his petition for a downward modification of a November 23, 2011 child support order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Support Magistrate harbored a bias against him (see CPLR 5501; Matter of Gina C. v Augusto C., 116 AD3d 478, 479 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 905 [2014]), and we decline to review his claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find respondent’s contention unfounded. We note that he has failed to cite to an actual ruling which demonstrated bias (see Anderson v Harris, 68 AD3d 472, 473 [1st Dept 2009]). The court properly exercised its discretion in denying respondent’s motion for an adjournment (see Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283 [1984]).

Concur — Saxe, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Matter of Bianca J. v. Dwayne C.A., 136 A.D.3d 450, 23 N.Y.S.3d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

136 A.D.3d 450 (Matter of Bianca J. v. Dwayne C.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related