Saunders v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saunders v. Smith

27 A.D.3d 759, 815 N.Y.S.2d 609

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 759 (Saunders v. Smith) 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

Saunders v. Smith, 27 A.D.3d 759, 815 N.Y.S.2d 609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated September 17, 2004, which denied his objection to a prior order of the same court dated May 10, 2004, denying his objections to an order of the same court (Baur, S.M.) dated February 11, 2004, which fixed his child support arrears at $13,800.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly determined that the filing of an objection to the order dated May 10, 2004, was not the proper [760]*760procedure for seeking review of the Support Magistrate’s order fixing the appellant’s child support arrears (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Davidson v Wilner, 214 AD2d 563 [1995]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Rivera, 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 petitioner father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated September 17, 2004, which denied his objection to a prior order of the same court dated May 10, 2004, denying his objections to an order of the same court (Baur, S.M.) dated February 11, 2004, which fixed his child support arrears at $13,800.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly determined that the filing of an objection to the order dated May 10, 2004, was not the proper [760]*760procedure for seeking review of the Support Magistrate’s order fixing the appellant’s child support arrears (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Davidson v Wilner, 214 AD2d 563 [1995]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 759, 815 N.Y.S.2d 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saunders-v-smith-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack