Matter of Kimelfeld v. Menczelesz

137 A.D.3d 914, 25 N.Y.S.3d 901
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 9, 2016
Docket2015-04050
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 914 (Matter of Kimelfeld v. Menczelesz) 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 Kimelfeld v. Menczelesz, 137 A.D.3d 914, 25 N.Y.S.3d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (W. Franc Perry, J.), dated April 28, 2015. The order denied, as untimely, the father’s objections to an order of that court (Elizabeth Shamahs, S.M.) dated February 26, 2015.

Ordered that the order dated April 28, 2015 is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 alleging that the father violated the child support provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce. In an order dated February 26, 2015, a Support Magistrate enforced the father’s support obligation, modifying it only to the extent of directing him to make payments through the Support Collection Unit. In the order appealed from, the Family Court denied, as untimely, the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order. The father appeals.

Objections to an order of a Support Magistrate must be filed *915 within 35 days after the date on which the order is mailed to the objecting party (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Babb v Darnley, 123 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2014]; Matter of Heuser v Chavez, 117 AD3d 738, 738 [2014]; Matter of Xiao-Lan Ma v Washington, 112 AD3d 957, 957-958 [2013]). On this record, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections as untimely and refused to consider them (see Matter of Yalvac v Williams, 131 AD3d 622 [2015]; Matter of Babb v Darnley, 123 AD3d at 1029; Matter of Hodges v Hodges, 40 AD3d 639, 639 [2007]; cf. Matter of Bruckstein v Bruckstein, 78 AD3d 694 [2010]).

Mastro, J.P., Hall, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Verzhbo v. Grubelich
2017 NY Slip Op 993 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Redd v. Burrell
2016 NY Slip Op 8365 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Ferrante v. Bantis
2016 NY Slip Op 7026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of DiMaio v. DiMaio
141 A.D.3d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 A.D.3d 914, 25 N.Y.S.3d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-kimelfeld-v-menczelesz-nyappdiv-2016.