Matter of Scott v. Jacques-Scott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Scott v. Jacques-Scott

2017 NY Slip Op 9139, 156 A.D.3d 890, 65 N.Y.S.3d 746

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2017

Docket2017-01223

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 9139 (Matter of Scott v. Jacques-Scott) 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 Scott v. Jacques-Scott, 2017 NY Slip Op 9139, 156 A.D.3d 890, 65 N.Y.S.3d 746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Joan L. Pic-cirillo, J.), dated December 7, 2016. The order denied, as untimely, the mother’s objections to an order of that court (David A. Kirshblum, S.M.), dated September 7, 2016, which, after a hearing and upon findings of fact dated August 30, 2016, directed the mother to pay retroactive child support and arrears.

Ordered that the order dated December 7, 2016, is affirmed, with costs.

Although the Family Court should not have denied the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order on the ground of untimeliness (see Matter of Hobbs v Wansley, 143 AD3d 1138, 1139 [2016]; Matter of H.M. v E.T., 89 AD3d 848, 849 [2011]), her objections were properly denied on alternative grounds (see Matter of H.M. v E.T., 89 AD3d at 849). Specifically, the mother filed objections relating to the conduct of the hearing and the testimony presented during the hearing, but failed to submit a proper record to enable the Family Court to review the objections and make its own findings of fact (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; cf. Matter of Baker v Rose, 23 AD3d 1112, 1113 [2005]).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections to the order of support.

Rivera, J.R, Cohen, Maltese and Iannacci, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Joan L. Pic-cirillo, J.), dated December 7, 2016. The order denied, as untimely, the mother’s objections to an order of that court (David A. Kirshblum, S.M.), dated September 7, 2016, which, after a hearing and upon findings of fact dated August 30, 2016, directed the mother to pay retroactive child support and arrears.

Ordered that the order dated December 7, 2016, is affirmed, with costs.

Although the Family Court should not have denied the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order on the ground of untimeliness (see Matter of Hobbs v Wansley, 143 AD3d 1138, 1139 [2016]; Matter of H.M. v E.T., 89 AD3d 848, 849 [2011]), her objections were properly denied on alternative grounds (see Matter of H.M. v E.T., 89 AD3d at 849). Specifically, the mother filed objections relating to the conduct of the hearing and the testimony presented during the hearing, but failed to submit a proper record to enable the Family Court to review the objections and make its own findings of fact (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; cf. Matter of Baker v Rose, 23 AD3d 1112, 1113 [2005]).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections to the order of support.

Rivera, J.R, Cohen, Maltese and Iannacci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 9139, 156 A.D.3d 890, 65 N.Y.S.3d 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-scott-v-jacques-scott-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack