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
Court Improperly Amended Allegations in Neglect Petition
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT HE OWNED THE LAND WHERE TREES WERE HARVESTED; THEREFORE THE ISSUE WHETHER THE TREBLE DAMAGES ASPECT OF RPAPL 861 APPLIES MUST BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
Transfer of Assets to Qualify for Medicaid Constituted a Breach of the Defendants’ Contract with Plaintiff Continuing Care Retirement Community
Fact that Defendant Was Seen With a .25 Caliber Handgun Two and a Half Months Before Charged Shooting Allowed In Evidence to Prove “Identity”
THE BRAKES FAILED ON A LIMOUSINE OWNED BY PETITIONER AND 20 PEOPLE DIED; PETITIONER PLED TO 20 COUNTS OF CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE AND, PURSUANT TO A PLEA AGREEMENT, WAS SENTENCED TO PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE; BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL DEFECT IN THE SENTENCE, PETITIONER APPEARED FOR RESENTENCING BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE WHO DECIDED TO IMPOSE PRISON TIME; PETITIONER WITHDREW HIS PLEA, THE MATTER WAS SET FOR TRIAL AND PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING TO REINSTATE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE; THE PETITION WAS DENIED OVER A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
“Weight of the Evidence” Review.
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) WHEN A BRIDGE FORM HE WAS UNLOADING FELL ON HIM, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION TO WARRANT DISCOVERY (THIRD DEPT).
Appeal Found “Frivilous”

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...