Henry v. Greenidge, 2014-01574, Docket No. F-10506-07/10G.
Decision Date | 29 April 2015 |
Docket Number | 2014-01574, Docket No. F-10506-07/10G. |
Citation | 7 N.Y.S.3d 575,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03532,127 A.D.3d 1192 |
Parties | In the Matter of Tonya HENRY, respondent, v. Olvin GREENIDGE, appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, N.Y., for appellant.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Amanda E. White, J.), dated January 10, 2014. The order denied the father's objections to an order of that court (Israella Mayeri, S.M.) dated August 14, 2013, which, after a hearing, determined that he was in willful violation of a prior order of support.
ORDERED that the order dated January 10, 2014, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
(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], [e] ).
In an order dated August 14, 2013, a Support Magistrate determined that the father was in willful violation of a prior support order. In an order dated September 13, 2013, the Family Court, in effect, confirmed the determination of willfulness and thereupon issued an order of commitment, which committed the father to the custody of the New York City Department of Correction for a period of six months, weekends only.
The father's contentions regarding the willfulness finding and the setting of arrears are not properly before us on this appeal, because, with respect to those issues, the father failed to pursue his sole remedy, which was to appeal from the order of commitment dated September 13, 2013, entered upon confirmation of the Support Magistrate's determination (see Matter of Flanagan v. Flanagan, 109 A.D.3d at 471, 969 N.Y.S.2d 915 ; Matter of Dakin v. Dakin, 75 A.D.3d at 640, 904 N.Y.S.2d 677 ; Matter of Roth v. Bowman, 245 A.D.2d 521, 522, 666 N.Y.S.2d 695 ; Family Ct. Act § 1112 ). Since the father improperly filed written objections to the nonfinal order of the Support Magistrate, the Family Court correctly denied the father's objections on procedural grounds (see Matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pace v. Douglas
...has “no force and effect until confirmed by a judge of the court” (Family Ct. Act § 439 [a]; see Matter of Henry v. Greenidge, 127 A.D.3d 1192, 1192–1193, 7 N.Y.S.3d 575 ; cf. Family Ct. Act § 439[e] ). Thus, the support magistrate's determination is not a “final order” to which a party may......
-
Fryc-Cannella v. Town of N. Hempstead, 2014-04945, Index No. 3174/12.
...with costs.On February 9, 2011, the plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on an elevated cement sidewalk flag in front of her home in New 7 N.Y.S.3d 575Hyde Park, in the Town of North Hempstead. Where, as here, a municipality has adopted a prior written notice law, it cannot be held liable f......
-
In re Greenfield, File No. 2978/02, 2013-00531.
...to the decedent's former law practice, arranging for the transfer of the decedent's law practice to the decedent's associate, settling 127 A.D.3d 1192various claims against the estate, arranging for the preparation and filing of the initial account, and identifying the decedent's lawful dis......