Matter of Redd v. Burrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Redd v. Burrell

2016 NY Slip Op 8365, 145 A.D.3d 786, 41 N.Y.S.3d 909

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2016

Docket2016-02223

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8365 (Matter of Redd v. Burrell) 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 Redd v. Burrell, 2016 NY Slip Op 8365, 145 A.D.3d 786, 41 N.Y.S.3d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*787 Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Danielle M. Peterson, J.), dated February 2, 2016. The order denied the mother’s objections to two orders of that court (Adam Small, S.M.) dated May 13, 2015, and September 10, 2015, respectively.

Ordered that the order dated February 2, 2016, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In March 2015, the father filed a petition, inter alia, pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 to terminate his obligation to pay child care expenses. In an order dated May 13, 2015, after a hearing, the Family Court granted that branch of the father’s petition. In August 2015, the mother filed a petition for an upward modification of the father’s child support obligation. In an order dated September 10, 2015, after a hearing, the court denied the mother’s petition. In the order appealed from, the court denied the mother’s objections to the orders dated May 13, 2015, and September 10, 2015. The mother appeals.

“Objections to an order of a Support Magistrate must be filed within 35 days after the date on which the order is mailed to the objecting party” (Matter of DiMaio v DiMaio, 141 AD3d 520, 520 [2016]; see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Kimelfeld v Menczelesz, 137 AD3d 914, 914-915 [2016]). Here, the Family Court properly denied, as untimely, the mother’s objections to the order dated May 13, 2015 (see Matter of DiMaio v DiMaio, 141 AD3d at 520; Matter of Kimelfeld v Menczelesz, 137 AD3d at 915; cf. Matter of Ryan v Ryan, 110 AD3d 1176, 1178-1179 [2013]).

Furthermore, the Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections to the order dated September 10, 2015. The Support Magistrate properly determined that the mother failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting an upward modification of the father’s child support obligation (see Family Ct Act § 451 [3] [a]; Matter of Guevara v Villatoro, 134 AD3d 1115, 1115 [2015]; Matter of Shillingford v Dielinger, 101 AD3d 889, 889 [2012]).

The mother’s remaining contentions either need not be reached in light of our determination, are not properly before this Court, or are without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

*787 Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Danielle M. Peterson, J.), dated February 2, 2016. The order denied the mother’s objections to two orders of that court (Adam Small, S.M.) dated May 13, 2015, and September 10, 2015, respectively.

Ordered that the order dated February 2, 2016, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In March 2015, the father filed a petition, inter alia, pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 to terminate his obligation to pay child care expenses. In an order dated May 13, 2015, after a hearing, the Family Court granted that branch of the father’s petition. In August 2015, the mother filed a petition for an upward modification of the father’s child support obligation. In an order dated September 10, 2015, after a hearing, the court denied the mother’s petition. In the order appealed from, the court denied the mother’s objections to the orders dated May 13, 2015, and September 10, 2015. The mother appeals.

“Objections to an order of a Support Magistrate must be filed within 35 days after the date on which the order is mailed to the objecting party” (Matter of DiMaio v DiMaio, 141 AD3d 520, 520 [2016]; see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Kimelfeld v Menczelesz, 137 AD3d 914, 914-915 [2016]). Here, the Family Court properly denied, as untimely, the mother’s objections to the order dated May 13, 2015 (see Matter of DiMaio v DiMaio, 141 AD3d at 520; Matter of Kimelfeld v Menczelesz, 137 AD3d at 915; cf. Matter of Ryan v Ryan, 110 AD3d 1176, 1178-1179 [2013]).

Furthermore, the Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections to the order dated September 10, 2015. The Support Magistrate properly determined that the mother failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting an upward modification of the father’s child support obligation (see Family Ct Act § 451 [3] [a]; Matter of Guevara v Villatoro, 134 AD3d 1115, 1115 [2015]; Matter of Shillingford v Dielinger, 101 AD3d 889, 889 [2012]).

The mother’s remaining contentions either need not be reached in light of our determination, are not properly before this Court, or are without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8365, 145 A.D.3d 786, 41 N.Y.S.3d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-redd-v-burrell-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack