Reynolds v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 16 February 2012 |
| Citation | 92 A.D.3d 1109,938 N.Y.S.2d 382,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01165 |
| Parties | Rhonda K. REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. Michael T. REYNOLDS, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Nicholas E. Tishler, Niskayuna, for appellant.
Law Offices of Newell & Klingebiel, Glens Falls (Karen Judd of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, J.P., ROSE, LAHTINEN, KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ.
Appeals (1) from an order and amended order of the Family Court of Warren County (Breen, J.), entered August 17, 2010 and September 20, 2012, which denied defendant's objections to an order of support, and (2) from an order of said court, entered October 25, 2010, which denied defendant's motion for reargument.
Petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent (hereinafter the father), the parents of two children (born in 1992 and 1996), were divorced in 2009. When Supreme Court (Krogmann, J.) issued the judgment of divorce, it also ordered the father to pay temporary child support and referred the mother's application for permanent child support to a Support Magistrate of the Family Court of Warren County. After a fact-finding hearing, the Support Magistrate (Huessi, S.M.) issued an order of permanent support and the father timely filed written objections pursuant to the requirements of Family Ct. Act § 439(e). Without reaching the merits, however, Family Court denied the objections on the ground that the father should have taken a direct appeal to this Court from the Support Magistrate's order. Family Court also denied the father's motion to reargue this procedural point.
We agree with the father that Family Ct. Act § 439(e) requires a judge of the Family Court to review any objections made by the parties to a Support Magistrate's final order before an appeal may be taken pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 11 ( see Matter of Corry v. Corry, 59 A.D.3d 618, 618, 875 N.Y.S.2d 87 [2009]; Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. v. Harris, 26 A.D.3d 283, 286, 810 N.Y.S.2d 175 [2006]; Matter of Feliz v. Rojas, 21 A.D.3d 373, 374, 800 N.Y.S.2d 187 [2005]; Matter of Dambrowski v. Dambrowski, 8 A.D.3d 913, 914, 778 N.Y.S.2d 733 [2004] ). Contrary to Family Court's conclusion, this procedure is not altered by Family Ct. Act § 464(a), which permits Supreme Court to refer an application for support in a matrimonial action to Family Court and provides Family Court with jurisdiction to determine the application with the same powers possessed by Supreme Court ( see e.g. Rossiter v. Rossiter, 56 A.D.3d 1011, 1011 n. 1, 869 N.Y.S.2d 624 [2008]; Zwickel v. Szajer, 47 A.D.3d 1157, 1157, 850 N.Y.S.2d 287 [2008] ).
While Supreme Court's referral here was to the Support Magistrate of the Family Court ( see Family Ct. Act § 464[a] ), Support Magistrates are a part of Family Court and are “empowered to hear, determine and grant any relief within the powers of [Family] [C]ourt” in specifically enumerated proceedings, including, as relevant here, support proceedings commenced upon referral pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 4 (Family Ct. Act § 439[a] ). Accordingly, Supreme Court was authorized to refer the application for permanent support directly to the Support Magistrate ( see Family Ct. Act § 464[a]; Burgaleta v. Burgaleta, 51 A.D.3d 842, 842, 858 N.Y.S.2d 744 [2008] ), the matter then became a Family Court support proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 4, and the objections to the Support Magistrate's order should have been reviewed by Family Court prior to any appeal to this Court ( see ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barbara T. v. Acquinetta M.
...Support Magistrate is appealable after objections have been reviewed by a judge (FCA § 439[e] ); see also Reynolds v. Reynolds, 92 A.D.3d 1109, 1110, 938 N.Y.S.2d 382 [3d Dept. 2012] ). In addition, this Court has discretion to entertain an appeal of any Family Court order other than an ord......
-
Torpey v. Town of Colonie
...(CPLR 2221[d][1] ), as required, and, in any event, no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue ( see Reynolds v. Reynolds, 92 A.D.3d 1109, 1110, 938 N.Y.S.2d 382 [2012] ). The motion likewise was not denominated as one seeking renewal ( seeCPLR 2221[e][1] ) and was not based upon......
-
Jacobi v. Lewis
...support to petitioner for said child; matter remitted to the Family Court of Cortland County for further proceedings not inconsistent [938 N.Y.S.2d 382] with this Court's decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.LAHTINEN, KAVANAGH, STEIN and GARRY, JJ., concur.--------Notes: 1. Neither party......
-
Collins v. Yodle, Inc.
...acknowledges that no appeal lies from the denial of the motion to reargue, and we dismiss that appeal ( see Reynolds v. Reynolds, 92 A.D.3d 1109, 1110, 938 N.Y.S.2d 382 [2012] ). 2. Plaintiff's claim that he never received the terms and conditions is made for the first time on appeal and is......