Richardson v. Scott M. C.
New York City Family Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Anthony J. Sciolino, J.
The above-named petitioner, pursuant to the provisions of section 439 of the Family Court Act, has filed written objections to the findings of fact of the Hearing Examiner.
*616The court has reviewed the pleadings, written objection and the tape recorded hearing and finds as follows:
The petitioner has objected to the order of the Hearing Examiner for two reasons: (1) that the Hearing Examiner is without authorization to prohibit the administrative add-on; and (2) that the Hearing Examiner failed to apply the requirements of Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f)…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Copeland v. EvansAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
3Cited by3 opinions
- Commissioner of Social Services v. Daryl S.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Stokley v. DorvilleNew York City Family Court · 1998
- Kennedy v. KennedyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998