From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hidary v. Hidary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 14, 2010
79 A.D.3d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-10704, 2010-11309.

December 14, 2010.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 23, 2009, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated October 9, 2009; and it is further,

Jack M. Hidary, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Linda Hidary, Brooklyn, N.Y., respondent pro se.

Before: Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Balkin and Chambers, JJ.


Ordered that the order dated October 9, 2009, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent. The father's proof of service of his objections to the order dated February 23, 2009, was deficient ( see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; CPLR 306). Thus, the father failed to satisfy a condition precedent to filing timely written objections to the Support Magistrate's order, and the Family Court properly denied his objections on that ground ( see Matter of Chukwuogo v Chukwuogo, 46 AD3d 558, 558-559). Consequently, the father waived his right to appellate review of the merits of his objections ( see Matter of Simpson v Gelin, 48 AD3d 693; Matter of Star v Frazer, 232 AD2d 570, 571).


Summaries of

Hidary v. Hidary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 14, 2010
79 A.D.3d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Hidary v. Hidary

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JACK M. HIDARY, Appellant, v. LINDA HIDARY, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 14, 2010

Citations

79 A.D.3d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 9268
912 N.Y.S.2d 435

Citing Cases

Richardson v. Thompson

Even if any of the father's motions may be treated as a motion for leave to reargue (see Jovanovic v.…

Lawrence v. Bernier

Family Court Act § 439(e) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] party filing objections shall serve a copy…