Steuben County Support Collection Unit v. Bartholomew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steuben County Support Collection Unit v. Bartholomew

2 A.D.3d 1434, 768 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14439

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 1434 (Steuben County Support Collection Unit v. Bartholomew) 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

Steuben County Support Collection Unit v. Bartholomew, 2 A.D.3d 1434, 768 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of Family Court, Steuben County (Furfure, J.), entered [1435]*1435December 2, 2002, which denied the objections of respondent-petitioner to the order of the Hearing Examiner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent-petitioner (respondent) appeals from an order denying his objections to the order of the Hearing Examiner. That order was entered on the consent of the parties and thus is not subject to the review of either Family Court or this Court (see Matter of Oropallo v Tecler, 263 AD2d 716, 718 [1999]). The record does not support the contention of respondent that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see Batson v Batson, 277 AD2d 750, 752 [2000]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.

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

— Appeal from an order of Family Court, Steuben County (Furfure, J.), entered [1435]*1435December 2, 2002, which denied the objections of respondent-petitioner to the order of the Hearing Examiner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent-petitioner (respondent) appeals from an order denying his objections to the order of the Hearing Examiner. That order was entered on the consent of the parties and thus is not subject to the review of either Family Court or this Court (see Matter of Oropallo v Tecler, 263 AD2d 716, 718 [1999]). The record does not support the contention of respondent that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see Batson v Batson, 277 AD2d 750, 752 [2000]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 1434, 768 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steuben-county-support-collection-unit-v-bartholomew-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack