Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

Herman v. Herman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 12, 2004

11 A.D.3d 536; 782 N.Y.S.2d 648; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12004

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Babb v. Darnley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Matter of Yalvac v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Xiao-Lan Ma v. Washington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Xiao-Lan Ma v. Washington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Barrett v. Barrett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Sanabria v. Medina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Forde v. Forde (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Schliefer v. Wilson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Hodges v. Hodges (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Powell v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Sannuto v. Sannuto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Brennan, J.), dated September 11, 2002, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Cahn, H.E.), dated May 15, 2002, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed the entry of a judgment against him for child and spousal support arrears in the sum of $50,473.03.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Family Court Act § 439 (e) provides that an aggrieved party may submit to a Family Court judge specific written objections to the final order of the support magistrate (formerly hearing examiner) within 35 days after the mailing of the order to such party. Since the husband did not timely submit written objections to the hearing examiner’s final order of support, the Family Court properly refused to consider the objections on this ground (see Matter of Mayeri v Mayeri, 279 AD2d 473 [2001]; Matter of Rinaldi v Rinaldi, 239 AD2d 506 [1997]). Florio, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.