Matter of Phalen v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Phalen v. Robinson

2017 NY Slip Op 7846, 155 A.D.3d 1587, 63 N.Y.S.3d 296

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2017

Docket1231 CAF 17-00320

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7846 (Matter of Phalen v. Robinson) 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 Phalen v. Robinson, 2017 NY Slip Op 7846, 155 A.D.3d 1587, 63 N.Y.S.3d 296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Carter, J.), entered May 12, 2016 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied respondent’s objection to the order of the Support Magistrate.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 alleging that respondent father violated his child support obligations by refusing to pay certain dental expenses for the parties’ child. At the ensuing hearing, the Support Magistrate, over the father’s objections, permitted a dentist to testify telephonically regarding the child’s need for dental treatment. Contrary to the father’s contention, we cannot say that the Support Magistrate abused her broad discretion in permitting the dentist’s telephonic testimony under these circumstances (see generally Family Ct Act § 433 [c] [iii]; Matter of Rodriguez v Feldman, 126 AD3d 1557, 1558 [4th Dept 2015]; Matter of Eileen R. [Carmine S.], 79 AD3d 1482, 1485 [3d Dept 2010]). Moreover, the father was not prejudiced by a ministerial error on the dentist’s application for leave to testify by telephone.

Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, NeMoyer and Troutman, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Carter, J.), entered May 12, 2016 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied respondent’s objection to the order of the Support Magistrate.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 alleging that respondent father violated his child support obligations by refusing to pay certain dental expenses for the parties’ child. At the ensuing hearing, the Support Magistrate, over the father’s objections, permitted a dentist to testify telephonically regarding the child’s need for dental treatment. Contrary to the father’s contention, we cannot say that the Support Magistrate abused her broad discretion in permitting the dentist’s telephonic testimony under these circumstances (see generally Family Ct Act § 433 [c] [iii]; Matter of Rodriguez v Feldman, 126 AD3d 1557, 1558 [4th Dept 2015]; Matter of Eileen R. [Carmine S.], 79 AD3d 1482, 1485 [3d Dept 2010]). Moreover, the father was not prejudiced by a ministerial error on the dentist’s application for leave to testify by telephone.

Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, NeMoyer and Troutman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7846, 155 A.D.3d 1587, 63 N.Y.S.3d 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-phalen-v-robinson-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack