Raphael v. Raphael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raphael v. Raphael

309 A.D.2d 721, 766 N.Y.S.2d 556, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11261

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 721 (Raphael v. Raphael) 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

Raphael v. Raphael, 309 A.D.2d 721, 766 N.Y.S.2d 556, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered on or about October 4, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, denied respondent’s objections to an order entered by the Hearing Examiner on November 14, 2001, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s objections to the decision of Judge Bednar, dated August 18, 1995, including his jurisdictional complaint, do not present grounds to reverse the order before us on this appeal. In any event, as Family Court properly held, there is no merit to respondent’s primary objection to the Hearing Examiner’s order, i.e., that child support was improperly adjudicated without referring respondent’s defense of abandon[722]*722ment by the subject child for a hearing, particularly since the court had previously found that respondent had “prolonged and exacerbated the conflict with his son by his own actions” and there was no indication that respondent, in the period since that finding, had attempted to repair the relationship (see Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G.C., 193 AD2d 97, 109-110 [1993]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered on or about October 4, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, denied respondent’s objections to an order entered by the Hearing Examiner on November 14, 2001, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s objections to the decision of Judge Bednar, dated August 18, 1995, including his jurisdictional complaint, do not present grounds to reverse the order before us on this appeal. In any event, as Family Court properly held, there is no merit to respondent’s primary objection to the Hearing Examiner’s order, i.e., that child support was improperly adjudicated without referring respondent’s defense of abandon[722]*722ment by the subject child for a hearing, particularly since the court had previously found that respondent had “prolonged and exacerbated the conflict with his son by his own actions” and there was no indication that respondent, in the period since that finding, had attempted to repair the relationship (see Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G.C., 193 AD2d 97, 109-110 [1993]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 721, 766 N.Y.S.2d 556, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raphael-v-raphael-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack