AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of NINA DAKIN, Respondent, v. JAMES DAKIN, JR., Appellant.

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 the Family 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 AD2d 521, 522; Family Ct Act § 1112).

The remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE DAKIN
(Jul 27, 2010)