Zullo v. Hom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zullo v. Hom

1 A.D.2d 442, 766 N.Y.S.2d 898

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 442 (Zullo v. Hom) 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

Zullo v. Hom, 1 A.D.2d 442, 766 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Brennan, J.), dated March 12, 2002, which, inter alia, in effect, dismissed his objections to an order of the same court (Kahlon, H.E.), dated May 15, 2001, denying his petition for a downward modification of child support, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court (Koenig, J.), dated October 11, 2001, which, among other things, denied his motion to quash a child support subpoena.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Family Court Act § 439 (e) provides that an aggrieved party’s specific written objections to the final order of the Hearing Examiner must be submitted within 35 days after the mailing of the order to such party. Since it is undisputed that the father did not timely submit written objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order dated May 15, 2001, the Family Court properly refused to consider the objections on this ground.

Furthermore, the Family Court properly denied the father’s motion to quash the child support subpoena (see Social Services Law § 111-b [1]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.E, Krausman, Schmidt 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 father appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Brennan, J.), dated March 12, 2002, which, inter alia, in effect, dismissed his objections to an order of the same court (Kahlon, H.E.), dated May 15, 2001, denying his petition for a downward modification of child support, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court (Koenig, J.), dated October 11, 2001, which, among other things, denied his motion to quash a child support subpoena.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Family Court Act § 439 (e) provides that an aggrieved party’s specific written objections to the final order of the Hearing Examiner must be submitted within 35 days after the mailing of the order to such party. Since it is undisputed that the father did not timely submit written objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order dated May 15, 2001, the Family Court properly refused to consider the objections on this ground.

Furthermore, the Family Court properly denied the father’s motion to quash the child support subpoena (see Social Services Law § 111-b [1]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.E, Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 442, 766 N.Y.S.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zullo-v-hom-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack