Proulx v. Ardito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Proulx v. Ardito

289 A.D.2d 581, 735 N.Y.S.2d 789, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13084

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 581 (Proulx v. Ardito) 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

Proulx v. Ardito, 289 A.D.2d 581, 735 N.Y.S.2d 789, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13084 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered April 5, 2001, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Livrieri, H.E.), dated February 9, 2001, which, upon the stipulation of the parties, inter alia, set the amount of child support to be paid by the father.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The order dated February 9, 2001 indicates that it was issued pursuant to a stipulation of the parties made on the record and settling all the issues raised by the petition. It was therefore an order entered on consent and the Family Court properly held that the appellant could not file objections to it (see, Matter of Benerofe v Wechsler, 281 AD2d 476; Matter of Larkin-King v King, 159 AD2d 626). Krausman, J. P., Luciano, Smith, Adams and Prudenti, 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 mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered April 5, 2001, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Livrieri, H.E.), dated February 9, 2001, which, upon the stipulation of the parties, inter alia, set the amount of child support to be paid by the father.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The order dated February 9, 2001 indicates that it was issued pursuant to a stipulation of the parties made on the record and settling all the issues raised by the petition. It was therefore an order entered on consent and the Family Court properly held that the appellant could not file objections to it (see, Matter of Benerofe v Wechsler, 281 AD2d 476; Matter of Larkin-King v King, 159 AD2d 626). Krausman, J. P., Luciano, Smith, Adams and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 581, 735 N.Y.S.2d 789, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/proulx-v-ardito-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack