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 LISA MILLER, respondent, v. JONATHAN SMITH, appellant. (Docket Nos. U-05818/01, V-9514/00).

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated June 13, 2002, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated November 22, 2002; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated November 22, 2002, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the mother.

Family Court Act § 439(e) provides that an aggrieved party's specific written objections to the final order of support of the Hearing Examiner must be submitted within 35 days after the mailing of the order to such party. The Hearing Examiner's order was mailed to the father on June 14, 2002. However, the father did not submit written objections to the Hearing Examiner's order until July 22, 2002. Since the father's written objections were not submitted until more than 35 days after the mailing of the Hearing Examiner's order, the Family Court properly denied the objections on this ground ( see Matter of Zullo v. Hom, 1 A.D.3d 442; Matter of Mayeri v. Mayeri, 279 A.D.2d 473). The father's contention on appeal regarding the date of mailing is based on matter dehors the record.

H. MILLER, J.P., ADAMS, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN THE MATTER OF MILLER v. SMITH
(May 10, 2004)