AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
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

In the Matter of VIRGINIA CANFIELD, Respondent, v. GEORGE CANFIELD, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Chautauqua County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Family Court erred in dismissing as untimely respondent's objections to the order of the Hearing Examiner. Pursuant to Family Court Act § 439 (e), respondent had 30 days from the entry of the order to file his objections. Service with notice of entry is required to commence the running of that period (see, Matter of Stone v Schlegal, 132 Misc.2d 808, 809; see generally, Cultural Ctr. Commn. v. Kokoritsis, 103 A.D.2d 1018). The Hearing Examiner's order was entered on August 28, 1990, and respondent's objections were not filed until December 10, 1990. The record, however, fails to establish that respondent was ever properly served with the order (see, CPLR 2103 [b]). Thus, petitioner failed to show that respondent's objections were untimely.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF CANFIELD v. CANFIELD
(Jul 14, 1992)