You are here: / / FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THE OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S...
,

FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THE OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S DETERMINATION DID NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE OBJECTIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the failure to time file proof of service of respondent’s objections to the determination of the Support Magistrate did not warrant dismissal of the objections:

Family Court Act § 439 (e) provides that a party filing objections to the determination of the Support Magistrate must serve those objections upon the opposing party, and that proof of service “shall be filed with the court at the time of filing of objections.” Here, the record indicates that respondent timely filed his objections and served a copy of those objections upon petitioner on the same day, but respondent failed to file proof of service with Family Court until two days later.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, we substitute our discretion for that of Family Court and conclude that dismissal of respondent’s objections is not warranted … . Although respondent failed to comply with the statutory deadline for filing proof of service, ” ‘[s]trict adherence to this deadline is not required,’ ” and courts have ” ‘discretion to overlook a minor failure to comply with the statutory requirement’ ” … . Here, there is no dispute that petitioner was not prejudiced by the late filing inasmuch as she was served with a copy of respondent’s objections within the statutory time period (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]). Indeed, the record shows that petitioner filed a rebuttal to respondent’s objections. Matter of Sigourney v Santaro, 2021 NY Slip Op 01591, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

You might also like
IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR A JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA DEAL WITH A CODEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR TESTIMONY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).
CPLR 214-c, Which Starts the Statute of Limitations Upon Discovery of the Injury, Applies Only to Toxic Torts—The Statute Does Not Apply to an Action Seeking Damages for the Allegedly Negligent Approval (by the Town) of a Defective Septic System
DEFENDANT WAS A PRIME, NOT A GENERAL, CONTRACTOR AND DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HOWEVER, DEFENDANT DID EXERCISE SOME CONTROL OVER WORK-SITE SAFETY AND THEREFORE MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER DID NOT COME FORWARD WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT WAS VALID.
Collapse of Makeshift Scaffold Entitled Plaintiff to Summary Judgment in Labor Law 240(1) Action—Plaintiff’s Comparative Negligence Is Not a Defense
GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE STRANGULATION COUNT DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITION OF THE “STUPOR” ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT CASE; THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY TO ALLOW HIS RELOCATION TO NORTH CAROLINA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH 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

COUNTY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER DEFENDANT... THE PROOF OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESION OF WEAPONS WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FOURTH...