Matter of Verzhbo v. Grubelich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Verzhbo v. Grubelich

2017 NY Slip Op 993, 147 A.D.3d 864, 46 N.Y.S.3d 423

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 2017

Docket2015-08888

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 993 (Matter of Verzhbo v. Grubelich) 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 Verzhbo v. Grubelich, 2017 NY Slip Op 993, 147 A.D.3d 864, 46 N.Y.S.3d 423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Adam Silvera, J.), dated July 30, 2015. The order denied, as untimely, the mother’s objections on the ground of inadequacy to an order of support of that court (John M. Fasone, S.M.) dated May 11, 2015, which, after a hearing, directed the father to pay the mother basic child support and child care expenses in the total sum of $569.33 per month.

*865 Ordered that the order dated July 30, 2015, is affirmed, with costs.

The parties have one child together. In an order of support dated May 11, 2015, made after a hearing, the Support Magistrate directed the father to pay the mother basic child support and child care expenses in the total sum of $569.33 per month. The mother filed objections to the order of support, challenging the Support Magistrate’s determination of the father’s child care expense obligation. In an order dated July 30, 2015, the Family Court denied the mother’s objections as untimely, and the mother appeals from that order.

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 (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Ferrante v Bantis, 143 AD3d 984 [2016]; Matter of Kimelfeld v Menczelesz, 137 AD3d 914, 914-915 [2016]; Matter of Babb v Darnley, 123 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2014]). On the record, the Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections to the order of support as untimely (see Matter of Ferrante v Bantis, 143 AD3d 984 [2016]; Matter of Kimelfeld v Menczelesz, 137 AD3d at 914-915; Matter of Yalvac v Williams, 131 AD3d 622 [2015]; Matter of Babb v Darnley, 123 AD3d at 1029).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the mother’s remaining contentions.

Chambers, J.P., Hall, Miller and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Adam Silvera, J.), dated July 30, 2015. The order denied, as untimely, the mother’s objections on the ground of inadequacy to an order of support of that court (John M. Fasone, S.M.) dated May 11, 2015, which, after a hearing, directed the father to pay the mother basic child support and child care expenses in the total sum of $569.33 per month.

*865 Ordered that the order dated July 30, 2015, is affirmed, with costs.

The parties have one child together. In an order of support dated May 11, 2015, made after a hearing, the Support Magistrate directed the father to pay the mother basic child support and child care expenses in the total sum of $569.33 per month. The mother filed objections to the order of support, challenging the Support Magistrate’s determination of the father’s child care expense obligation. In an order dated July 30, 2015, the Family Court denied the mother’s objections as untimely, and the mother appeals from that order.

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 (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Ferrante v Bantis, 143 AD3d 984 [2016]; Matter of Kimelfeld v Menczelesz, 137 AD3d 914, 914-915 [2016]; Matter of Babb v Darnley, 123 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2014]). On the record, the Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections to the order of support as untimely (see Matter of Ferrante v Bantis, 143 AD3d 984 [2016]; Matter of Kimelfeld v Menczelesz, 137 AD3d at 914-915; Matter of Yalvac v Williams, 131 AD3d 622 [2015]; Matter of Babb v Darnley, 123 AD3d at 1029).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the mother’s remaining contentions.

Chambers, J.P., Hall, Miller and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 993, 147 A.D.3d 864, 46 N.Y.S.3d 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-verzhbo-v-grubelich-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack