From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Hyacinthe-Cousins v. Hyacinthe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 2006
26 A.D.3d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-02434.

February 14, 2006.

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Chun, J.), dated February 10, 2005, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Fasone, S.M.), dated May 28, 2004, which, after a hearing, directed that he pay child support in the amount of $1,345 per month.

Jimmie Engram, Bronx, N.Y., for appellant.

Friedman, Friedman, Chiaravalloti Giannini, New York, N.Y. (Suzanne M. Scott of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father contends that pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a child support order ( see Family Ct Act §§ 580-204, 580-205 [d]). However, the father failed to demonstrate that a prior child support order had been issued by a court of another state, or that a prior proceeding for child support had even been commenced in another state ( cf. Matter of Hutchison v. Pirro, 11 AD3d 465; Matter of Ferraro v. Nash, 293 AD2d 538). Accordingly, the father's contention must be rejected. As the subject child was less than 21 years of age as of the date of the Support Magistrate's order, the Family Court had the authority to issue a child support order ( see Family Ct Act § 413 [a]).


Summaries of

In re Hyacinthe-Cousins v. Hyacinthe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 2006
26 A.D.3d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

In re Hyacinthe-Cousins v. Hyacinthe

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of GERALDINE HYACINTHE-COUSINS, Respondent, v. GERARD SERGE…

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

Date published: Feb 14, 2006

Citations

26 A.D.3d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 1166
809 N.Y.S.2d 184

Citing Cases

Puyi T. v. Justin L.

The Putative Father contends that those statutory provisions require the instant proceeding to be removed to…

Puyi T. v. Justin L.

The Putative Father contends that those statutory provisions require the instant proceeding to be removed to…