Legal Opinion

Richardson v. Scott M. C.

New York City Family Court

Decided April 8, 1993PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Copeland v. EvansAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Commissioner of Social Services v. Daryl S.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  2. Stokley v. DorvilleNew York City Family Court · 1998
  3. Kennedy v. KennedyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API