Sanabria v. Medina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanabria v. Medina

69 A.D.3d 947, 892 N.Y.2d 791

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.3d 947 (Sanabria v. Medina) 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

Sanabria v. Medina, 69 A.D.3d 947, 892 N.Y.2d 791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

The Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order dated April 9, 2008, denying the mother’s motion to vacate a money judgment dated January 23, 2002, entered upon her default in appearing, since the motion was not properly docketed (see 22 NYCRR 205.7 [d]). The Family Court properly gave the mother leave to refile the motion to vacate the judgment under the correct docket number (see 22 NYCRR 205.7 [b]).

The Family Court properly denied, as untimely, the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order dated July 11, 2008, because the objections were not filed within 35 days of the [948]*948court’s mailing of that order (see Matter of Hodges v Hodges, 40 AD3d 639 [2007]; Matter of Herman v Herman, 11 AD3d 536 [2004]; Family Ct Act § 439 [e]). Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

The Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order dated April 9, 2008, denying the mother’s motion to vacate a money judgment dated January 23, 2002, entered upon her default in appearing, since the motion was not properly docketed (see 22 NYCRR 205.7 [d]). The Family Court properly gave the mother leave to refile the motion to vacate the judgment under the correct docket number (see 22 NYCRR 205.7 [b]).

The Family Court properly denied, as untimely, the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order dated July 11, 2008, because the objections were not filed within 35 days of the [948]*948court’s mailing of that order (see Matter of Hodges v Hodges, 40 AD3d 639 [2007]; Matter of Herman v Herman, 11 AD3d 536 [2004]; Family Ct Act § 439 [e]). Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 947, 892 N.Y.2d 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanabria-v-medina-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack