Williams v. Selby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Selby

70 A.D.3d 1044, 893 N.Y.S.2d 900

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.3d 1044 (Williams v. Selby) 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

Williams v. Selby, 70 A.D.3d 1044, 893 N.Y.S.2d 900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act articles 4 and 5-B, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated July 25, 2008, which denied, as untimely, her objections to an order of the same court (Weir-Reeves, S.M.), dated April 24, 2008, dismissing her petition for a downward modification of her child support obligation.

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

On appeal, the mother does not challenge the Family Court’s denial of her objections to a Support Magistrate’s determination concerning issues of child support as untimely filed (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Lombardo v Thomas, 53 AD3d 549 [2008]; Matter of Hodges v Hodges, 40 AD3d 639 [2007]). In any event, we note that the Family Court correctly determined that the objections were untimely. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act articles 4 and 5-B, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated July 25, 2008, which denied, as untimely, her objections to an order of the same court (Weir-Reeves, S.M.), dated April 24, 2008, dismissing her petition for a downward modification of her child support obligation.

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

On appeal, the mother does not challenge the Family Court’s denial of her objections to a Support Magistrate’s determination concerning issues of child support as untimely filed (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Lombardo v Thomas, 53 AD3d 549 [2008]; Matter of Hodges v Hodges, 40 AD3d 639 [2007]). In any event, we note that the Family Court correctly determined that the objections were untimely. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 1044, 893 N.Y.S.2d 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-selby-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack