From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Burry v. Raisbeck

Family Court, Onondaga County
Sep 30, 1993
159 Misc. 2d 488 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1993)

Opinion

September 30, 1993

Frank Ventre for respondent.

Joseph Dosa for petitioner.


The respondent, by his attorney, has filed an objection to the Hearing Examiner's denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Family Court Act § 439 (e) provides in part that the "determination of a hearing examiner shall include findings of fact and a final order * * * Specific written objections to such [final] order may be submitted by either party to the court * * * The final order of a hearing examiner, after objections * * * have been reviewed by a judge, may be appealed pursuant to article eleven of this act" (emphasis added). An appeal from the final order may bring up for review "any non-final judgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment" (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

No objection as of right lies from an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss a paternity proceeding. (Matter of Dunbar v Hunter, 131 Misc.2d 706; see also, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a] [generally limiting appeals as of right to dispositional orders].) As such, respondent's objection to the Hearing Examiner's interlocutory order is hereby dismissed, with leave to renew on an objection to the final order.


Summaries of

Matter of Burry v. Raisbeck

Family Court, Onondaga County
Sep 30, 1993
159 Misc. 2d 488 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Burry v. Raisbeck

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of KATHLEEN BURRY, Petitioner, v. BRIAN RAISBECK, Respondent

Court:Family Court, Onondaga County

Date published: Sep 30, 1993

Citations

159 Misc. 2d 488 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1993)
605 N.Y.S.2d 204

Citing Cases

Wells v. Wells

Our holding is consistent with the holdings of many of our sister states who have held that a trial court's…

McGrath v. McGrath

The Hearing Examiner denied the motion after argument, and scheduled a hearing. The court is aware of cases…