You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVIEWED THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S NONFINAL...
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVIEWED THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S NONFINAL ORDER AND GRANTED FATHER’S OBJECTIONS, FATHER’S ARGUMENT THAT HE WOULD NEED TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AND SPEND TIME AWAY FROM WORK TO LITIGATE THE MATTER DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IRREPARABLE HARM NEEDED TO JUSTIFY A REVIEW OF A NONFINAL ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that father’s objections to the support magistrate’s nonfinal order should have been denied and explained the relevant criteria:

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 439(e), “[s]pecific, written objections to a final order of a support magistrate may be filed by either party with the court within thirty days after receipt of the order.” “[O]bjections from nonfinal orders made by a Support Magistrate are typically not reviewed unless they could lead to irreparable harm” … . Here, the father’s claim that he would be forced to incur attorney fees and spend time away from work litigating a case that would ultimately be dismissed does not rise to the level of irreparable harm  … . Therefore, the Family Court should have denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s nonfinal order. Matter of Tobing v May, 2019 NY Slip Op 00286, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

You might also like
STATE HAS NO DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF NATURAL CONDITIONS OF THE OCEAN FLOOR, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE DIVING INTO WAVES (SECOND DEPT).
SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT).
LOANING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT A CAR WITH A BROKEN FUEL GAUGE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH; THE CAR RAN OUT OF GAS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT PULLED OVER ONTO THE SHOULDER OF A TWO-LANE ROAD; SHE WAS STRUCK BY A HIT AND RUN DRIVER WHILE PUTTING GAS IN THE CAR WITH A GAS CAN (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S MOTION TO RESTORE THE 2009 FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH HAD BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT NOT FORMALLY, DISMISSED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED ITS INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE THE 2009 FORECLOSURE BUT THE MOTION TO RESTORE WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
Interest Pursuant to CPLR 5002 and 5003 Is a Matter of Right Not Dependent Upon the Court’s Discretion or a Demand
THE BANK’S SECOND MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW AND VIOLATED THE “SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN BRINGING THE UNTIMELY CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE ‘COVID-19’ EXECUTIVE ORDER GENERALLY TOLLING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING A PETITION TO VALIDATE A DESIGNATING PETITION, WHICH IS GOVERNED BY ANOTHER ‘COVID-19’ EXECUTIVE ORDER (SECOND 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

NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT... PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INDICATED HIS FALL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER...