You are here: / / Family Court Cannot Review Support Magistrate’s Order in Absence of Specific O...

Family Court Cannot Review Support Magistrate’s Order in Absence of Specific Objection

In reversing Family Court, the Third Department explained that Family Court does not have the authority to review those portions of a Support Magistrate’s order to which no specific objection his been made:

It is well established that “an order from a Support Magistrate is final and  Family Court’s review under Family Ct Act § 439 (e) is tantamount to appellate review and requires  specific  objections  for  issues  to  be  preserved”  ….  Family Court therefore lacked the authority to review the  order  dismissing  the  mother’s  first modification  petition,  to which no  objections had  been  filed… .  Matter of Hubbard v Barber. 515420, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

You might also like
Statements to Police Officer by Victim at the Scene Were “Nontestimonial” and Were Admissible as Excited Utterances
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A SLIP AND FALL ENTITLES A POLICE OFFICER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE LAW ARTICULATED IN THE OPINION (THIRD DEPT).
INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE, NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
THE 3RD DEPARTMENT, JOINING THE 2ND, HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING, DESPITE ITS CIVIL NATURE; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQRA RE THE PROPOSED SEWER DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A RESPONSE TO HIS COMPLAINT TO THE TOWN RE THE SEWER DISTRICT (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER, RECEIVED REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR (LABOR LAW 590), SHE WAS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON POWER LINES WHILE SUSPENDED FROM A HELICOPTER WHEN THE HELICOPTER LOST CONTROL AND CRASHED; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 200, 240 AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT (FAA) (THIRD DEPT).
THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DOLLAR STORE; THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT NEED TO SEND THE MATTER TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO INTERPRET A ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH WAS ONLY A GUIDELINE CONCERNING THE ALLOWED LENGTH OF A BUILDING FACADE; THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Denial of Request to Take Child’s Testimony Outside Parents’ Presence Was... Absence of Complete Financial Disclosure Did Not Preclude Family Court from...