Mitchell v. Remy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitchell v. Remy

24 A.D.3d 558, 805 N.Y.S.2d 288

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 558 (Mitchell v. Remy) 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

Mitchell v. Remy, 24 A.D.3d 558, 805 N.Y.S.2d 288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated May 7, 2004, which denied his objections to stated portions of an order of the same court (Blaustein, S. M.), dated March 5, 2004, which, after a hearing, inter alia, declined to address his claim that his visitation rights had been impaired.

Ordered that the order dated May 7, 2004, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A Support Magistrate’s jurisdiction is limited to the specific authority granted by statute (see Family Ct Act § 439; Matter of Rubino v Morgan, 203 AD2d 698, 700 [1994]). Since Support Magistrates are not empowered to hear visitation issues (see Matter of Rubino, supra), the Support Magistrate did not have the authority to rule on the father’s claim that his visitation rights had been impaired during the pendency of the proceeding. The Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated May 7, 2004, which denied his objections to stated portions of an order of the same court (Blaustein, S. M.), dated March 5, 2004, which, after a hearing, inter alia, declined to address his claim that his visitation rights had been impaired.

Ordered that the order dated May 7, 2004, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A Support Magistrate’s jurisdiction is limited to the specific authority granted by statute (see Family Ct Act § 439; Matter of Rubino v Morgan, 203 AD2d 698, 700 [1994]). Since Support Magistrates are not empowered to hear visitation issues (see Matter of Rubino, supra), the Support Magistrate did not have the authority to rule on the father’s claim that his visitation rights had been impaired during the pendency of the proceeding. The Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 558, 805 N.Y.S.2d 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-remy-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack