Matter of Carmela M.K. v. Michael E.M.

2019 NY Slip Op 397
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 22, 2019
Docket8175
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 397 (Matter of Carmela M.K. v. Michael E.M.) 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
Matter of Carmela M.K. v. Michael E.M., 2019 NY Slip Op 397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Matter of Carmela M.K. v Michael E.M. (2019 NY Slip Op 00397)
Matter of Carmela M.K. v Michael E.M.
2019 NY Slip Op 00397
Decided on January 22, 2019
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on January 22, 2019
Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Tom, Kern, Singh, JJ.

8175

[*1]In re Carmela M.K., Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Michael E.M., Respondent-Respondent.


Carmela M.K., appellant pro se.



Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about December 5, 2017, which denied petitioner mother's objection to an order of the same court (Harold E. Bahr III, Support Magistrate), entered on or about October 11, 2017, dismissing her support violation petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly denied the mother's objection to the order dismissing her petition, since the support obligation she sought to enforce had, with the youngest child's attainment of age 21, expired by the terms of the parties' stipulation and by operation of law (see Family Ct Act § 413; Matter of Thomas B. v Lydia D., 69 AD3d 24 [1st Dept 2009]). The mother's objection failed to show how this conclusion was incorrect or why her petition should have otherwise been allowed to proceed, as she did not show how any order was violated by respondent father.

We have considered the mother's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 22, 2019

CLERK



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

Related

Thomas B. v. Lydia D.
69 A.D.3d 24 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-carmela-mk-v-michael-em-nyappdiv-2019.