From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Proceeding, Raphael v. Raphael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 30, 2003
309 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2068

October 30, 2003.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered on or about October 4, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, denied respondent's objections to an order entered by the Hearing Examiner on November 14, 2001, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Pro Se, for petitioner-respondent.

Pro Se, for respondent-appellant.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow, Gonzalez, JJ.


Respondent's objections to the decision of Judge Bednar, dated August 18, 1995, including his jurisdictional complaint, do not present grounds to reverse the order before us on this appeal. In any event, as Family Court properly held, there is no merit to respondent's primary objection to the Hearing Examiner's order, i.e., that child support was improperly adjudicated without referring respondent's defense of abandonment by the subject child for a hearing, particularly since the court had previously found that respondent had "prolonged and exacerbated the conflict with his son by his own actions" and there was no indication that respondent, in the period since that finding, had attempted to repair the relationship (see Matter of Alice C. v. Bernard G.C., 193 A.D.2d 97, 109-110).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

In re Proceeding, Raphael v. Raphael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 30, 2003
309 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In re Proceeding, Raphael v. Raphael

Case Details

Full title:IN RE PROCEEDING, ETC., ANNE RAPHAEL, Petitioner-Respondent, v. SIDNEY…

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

Date published: Oct 30, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 556

Citing Cases

MM v. MM

Indeed, upon signing the stipulation of settlement, the husband was clearly cognizant of the relevant facts…