Camaiore v. Farance
| Decision Date | 03 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. F-04307-13/17G, F-04307-13/17H, F-04307-13/17I,2018-10219,2019-02559,2019-08588 |
| Citation | 123 N.Y.S.3d 524 (Mem),184 A.D.3d 560 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Marguerite CAMAIORE, Respondent. v. Frank FARANCE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
184 A.D.3d 560
123 N.Y.S.3d 524 (Mem)
In the Matter of Marguerite CAMAIORE, Respondent.
v.
Frank FARANCE, Appellant.
2018-10219
2019-02559
2019-08588
Docket Nos. F-04307-13/17G, F-04307-13/17H, F-04307-13/17I
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted - March 17, 2020
June 3, 2020
Frank Farance, New York, NY, appellant pro se.
Marguerite Camaiore, Astoria, NY, respondent pro se.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Joan L. Piccirillo, J.), dated June 22, 2018, (2) an order of the same court also dated June 22, 2018, and (3) an order of the same court dated June 10, 2019. The first order dated June 22, 2018, insofar as appealed from, denied the father's objections to an order of disposition of the same court (Solange N. Grey–Humphreys, S.M.) dated April 23, 2018, which, after a hearing and upon finding of facts dated April 23, 2018, granted the mother's violation petition and remitted certain issues to the Support Magistrate. The second order dated June 22, 2018, denied the father's objections to an order of the same court (Solange N. Grey–Humphreys, S.M.) also dated April 23, 2018, which, after a hearing, denied the father's petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation. The order dated June 10, 2019, denied the father's objections to an order of the same court (Solange N. Grey–Humphreys, S.M.) dated April 9, 2019, which, after a hearing, denied the father's separate petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the first order dated June 22, 2018, as remitted issues to the Support Magistrate is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the first order dated June 22, 2018, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jayne v. Smith
...regarding any nonprivileged information about the patient. We note that the particular content of the information sought by the plaintiff 184 A.D.3d 560 is not before us, since the plaintiff and the defendants made their motions before the individual defendants' depositions were conducted. ......
-
Bac Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Kirnon
...Court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for a judgment of foreclosure and sale and should have granted 123 N.Y.S.3d 524 the defendant's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her.In view of the foregoing, w......