Quackenbush v. Hellinger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quackenbush v. Hellinger

203 A.D.2d 972, 614 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5082

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

DecidedApril 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 972 (Quackenbush v. Hellinger) 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

Quackenbush v. Hellinger, 203 A.D.2d 972, 614 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Motion granted and order of Oswego County Family Court summarily reversed and matter remitted to Oswego County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of the Ontario County Family Court denying objections to the order of a Hearing Examiner. He has submitted uncontroverted proof that seven of eight tape recordings of proceedings before the Hearing Examiner are of such poor quality that they are not transcribable. The missing dates appear to include all of the testimony. The single transcript provided is insufficient for meaningful appellate review and reversal is required. Family Court should vacate the order of the Hearing Examiner and order a de novo hearing. Present — Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ. (Filed Mar. 31, 1994.)

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

—Motion granted and order of Oswego County Family Court summarily reversed and matter remitted to Oswego County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of the Ontario County Family Court denying objections to the order of a Hearing Examiner. He has submitted uncontroverted proof that seven of eight tape recordings of proceedings before the Hearing Examiner are of such poor quality that they are not transcribable. The missing dates appear to include all of the testimony. The single transcript provided is insufficient for meaningful appellate review and reversal is required. Family Court should vacate the order of the Hearing Examiner and order a de novo hearing. Present — Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ. (Filed Mar. 31, 1994.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 972, 614 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quackenbush-v-hellinger-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack