Cherrez v. Lazo
| Decision Date | 16 January 2013 |
| Citation | 957 N.Y.S.2d 888,102 A.D.3d 781,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00205 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Olga CHERREZ, respondent, v. José Antonio LAZO, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREJosé Antonio Lazo, New Hyde Park, N.Y., appellant pro se.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Arias, J.), dated September 8, 2011, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Blaustein, S.M.), dated April 29, 2011, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition to modify a prior order of support.
ORDERED that the order dated September 8, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Family Court Act § 439(e) provides, in pertinent part, that “[s]pecific written objections to a final order of a support magistrate may be filed by either party with the [Family Court] within thirty days after receipt of the order in court or by personal service, or, if the objecting party or parties did not receive the order in court or by personal service, thirty-five days after mailing of the order to such party or parties.” An order of a Support Magistrate is final, and the Family Court's review of objections to such an order is the equivalent of appellate review ( see Matter of Renee XX. v. John ZZ., 51 A.D.3d 1090, 1092, 857 N.Y.S.2d 770;Matter of Musarra v. Musarra, 28 A.D.3d 668, 814 N.Y.S.2d 657;Matter of Redmond v. Easy, 18 A.D.3d 283, 794 N.Y.S.2d 643). As such, the party challenging the Support Magistrate's order is required to make specific objections in order to preserve such challenges ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 439[e]; Matter of Renee XX. v. John ZZ., 51 A.D.3d at 1092, 857 N.Y.S.2d 770;Matter of Musarra v. Musarra, 28 A.D.3d 668, 814 N.Y.S.2d 657).
Since the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's order were not specific within the meaning of Family Court Act § 439(e), the Family Court properly denied his objections on that ground ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 439[e]; Matter of White v. Knapp, 66 A.D.3d 1358, 1359, 886 N.Y.S.2d 527;Matter of Renee XX. v. John ZZ., 51 A.D.3d at 1092, 857 N.Y.S.2d 770;Matter of Musarra v. Musarra, 28 A.D.3d 668, 814 N.Y.S.2d 657;cf. Matter of Hodges v. Hodges, 40 A.D.3d 639, 833 N.Y.S.2d 396;Matter of Pedone v. Corpes, 24 A.D.3d 559, 807 N.Y.S.2d 107).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jernigan-Leysath v. Leysath
... ... essentially equivalent to an appellate review of such an ... order (see Matter of Cherrez v Lazo, 102 A.D.3d 781, ... 782 [2d Dept 2013]). The scope of that review, however, is ... narrow, and confined to whether the Support ... ...
-
Y.D. v. L.O.
...of the Support Magistrate's order is essentially equivalent to an appellate review of such an order (see Matter of Cherrez v. Lazo , 102 A.D.3d 781, 782, 957 N.Y.S.2d 888 [2d Dept. 2013] ). The scope of that review, however, is narrow, and confined to whether the Support Magistrate, as the ......
- In re Reid W.
-
In re Angelo E.S.
...Law § 384–b[7][a], [c] ; Matter of Egypt A.A.G. [Kimble G.], 108 A.D.3d at 534, 969 N.Y.S.2d 111 ; Matter of Luis A.M.C. [Wendy M.], 102 A.D.3d at 781, 957 N.Y.S.2d 880 ; Matter of Carmine A.B. [Nicole B.], 101 A.D.3d 711, 712, 955 N.Y.S.2d 190 ). Here, the Family Court properly found that ......