Opinion
03-18-2016
In the Matter of Austin JOHNSON, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Sherry PRICHARD, Respondent–Respondent. In the Matter of Sherry Prichard, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Austin Johnson, Respondent–Appellant. In the Matter of Sherry Prichard, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Austin Johnson, Respondent–Appellant.
Paul M. Deep, Utica, for Petitioner–Appellant and Respondent–Appellant. John G. Koslosky, Attorney for the Child, Utica.
Paul M. Deep, Utica, for Petitioner–Appellant and Respondent–Appellant.
John G. Koslosky, Attorney for the Child, Utica.
MEMORANDUM:
We affirm for the reasons stated in the decision at Family Court. We add only that we reject the contention of petitioner-respondent father that the Court Attorney Referee did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. The parties and their attorneys signed a stipulation in 2012 setting forth that a judicial hearing officer or court attorney referee would hear and determine the custody matter and "all future modifications/violation proceedings concerning this action," and thus the Referee did not err in denying the father's oral request that the matter be heard by a Family Court judge (see Matter
of Johnson v. Streich–McConnell, 66 A.D.3d 1526, 1527, 886 N.Y.S.2d 539 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, and SCUDDER, JJ., concur.