From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Minka v. Minka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 29, 1995
219 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

September 29, 1995

Appeal from the Monroe County Family Court, Miller, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding against respondent to enforce the child support provision of a 1987 judgment of divorce. Respondent appeals from an order of Family Court denying his objections and confirming the findings of fact and order of the Hearing Examiner, thereby adjudging respondent to be liable for $15,400 in arrears. Although Family Court found that respondent's objections were not timely filed, it considered those objections in the interest of justice. We agree that the objections were untimely, but conclude that the court should have dismissed them on that ground (see, Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Zunino v Mahoney, 204 A.D.2d 469, 469-470; Matter of Oliver v Oliver, 202 A.D.2d 309, 311; Matter of Menaldino [Aletha TT.] v Mark UU., 141 A.D.2d 265, 267; Matter of Werner v Werner, 130 A.D.2d 754). Further, respondent's failure to file objections in a timely fashion bars appellate review of those objections (see, Matter of Werner v Werner, supra).

Were we to reach the merits, we would conclude that the decision of the Hearing Examiner is supported by the evidence and is not contrary to law. Respondent contends that he should be credited with payments made to the child by his whollyowned corporation. The Hearing Examiner properly credited the child's testimony, which was unequivocally supported by documentary evidence, that the weekly payments made between May 1987 and August 1991 were wages. With respect to the large payments made in August 1991 and August 1992, we agree with the Hearing Examiner's reasoning that money paid directly to the child to enable him to pay his college-related expenses cannot defray respondent's court-ordered obligation to pay child support to petitioner (see, O'Brien v O'Brien, 136 A.D.2d 531, 532; Fabrizio v Fabrizio, 125 A.D.2d 634, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 614; cf., Garguiolo v Topp, 184 A.D.2d 1027, 1028).


Summaries of

Matter of Minka v. Minka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 29, 1995
219 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Minka v. Minka

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of VERA MINKA, Respondent, v. PETER MINKA, Appellant

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

Date published: Sep 29, 1995

Citations

219 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 736

Citing Cases

Santaro v. Finocchio

On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), a cause of action for legal malpractice is properly dismissed…

Matter of Lee v. Ping Lee

The father's child support obligation ceased on January 28, 1995, the date his youngest child turned 21 years…