O'Hanlon v. Cornelius

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Hanlon v. Cornelius

213 A.D.2d 406, 624 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2410

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 406 (O'Hanlon v. Cornelius) 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

O'Hanlon v. Cornelius, 213 A.D.2d 406, 624 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Stanger, J.), dated November 12, 1993, which granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Judge Stanger at the Family Court.

We note that there is no merit to the petitioner’s contention that the Family Court erred in granting the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding without holding a hearing. There is no statutory requirement for a hearing (see, Domestic Relations Law § 72). In any event, the petitioner’s papers failed to set forth sufficient facts showing that there was a factual dispute requiring the Family Court to conduct a hearing before deciding the motion (see, Strauss v Ingber, 208 AD2d 608). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Stanger, J.), dated November 12, 1993, which granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Judge Stanger at the Family Court.

We note that there is no merit to the petitioner’s contention that the Family Court erred in granting the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding without holding a hearing. There is no statutory requirement for a hearing (see, Domestic Relations Law § 72). In any event, the petitioner’s papers failed to set forth sufficient facts showing that there was a factual dispute requiring the Family Court to conduct a hearing before deciding the motion (see, Strauss v Ingber, 208 AD2d 608). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 406, 624 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohanlon-v-cornelius-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack