Dakin v. Dakin
| Decision Date | 27 July 2010 |
| Citation | 75 A.D.3d 639,904 N.Y.S.2d 677 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Nina DAKIN, respondent, v. James DAKIN, Jr., appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant.
[904 N.Y.S.2d 678, 75 A.D.3d 639]
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffman, J.), dated March 13, 2009, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Raimondi, S.M.), dated January 26, 2009, which, after a hearing, found that he was in willful violation of a prior support order of the same court dated March 22, 2004.
ORDERED that the order dated March 13, 2009, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A determination by a support magistrate that a person is in willful violation of a support order and recommending commitment has no force and effect until confirmed by a Judge of theFamily Court ( see Family Ct. Act § 439[a] ). Such a determination by a support magistrate does not constitute a final order to which a party may file written objections ( see Family Ct. Act § 439[e] ). Here, the father improperly filed written objections to the nonfinal determination of the Support Magistrate dated January 26, 2009. Accordingly, in the order dated March 13, 2009, the Family Court correctly denied the father's objections. The father failed to pursue his sole remedy, which was to appeal from the final order of the Family Court dated January 26, 2009, confirming the Support Magistrate's determination ( see Matter of Roth v. Bowman, 245 A.D.2d 521, 522, 666 N.Y.S.2d 695; Family Ct. Act § 1112).
The remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brady v. White
...a Judge of the Family Court’ " (Matter of Flanagan v. Flanagan, 109 A.D.3d 470, 471, 969 N.Y.S.2d 915, quoting Matter of Dakin v. Dakin, 75 A.D.3d 639, 639–640, 904 N.Y.S.2d 677;see Family Ct Act § 439[a] ). "Such a determination by a support magistrate does not constitute a final order to ......
-
Baumgardner v. Baumgardner
...order and recommending commitment has no force and effect until confirmed by a Judge of the Family Court” (Matter of Dakin v. Dakin, 75 A.D.3d 639, 639–640, 904 N.Y.S.2d 677 ; see Family Ct. Act § 439 [a]; Matter of Flanagan v. Flanagan, 109 A.D.3d 470, 969 N.Y.S.2d 915 ). “Such a determina......
-
Martin v. Cooper
...had no force and effect until confirmed by the Family Court Judge ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 439[e]; see also Matter of Dakin v. Dakin, 75 A.D.3d 639, 904 N.Y.S.2d 677). “Such a determination by a support magistrate does not constitute a final order to which a party may file written objections” ......
-
In the Matter of Juan Carlos Ceballos v. Castillo
...Support Magistrate's recommendations had no force and effect until confirmed by the Family Court Judge ( see Matter of Dakin v. Dakin, 75 A.D.3d 639, 639–640, 904 N.Y.S.2d 677; see also Matter of Roth v. Bowman, 245 A.D.2d 521, 666 N.Y.S.2d 695; Family Ct. Act § 1112). Upon, in effect, conf......