Legal Opinion

Seth v. Seth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 4, 1994Published

1Opinion of the Court

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court erred in its determination that respondent’s objections to the order of the Hearing Examiner were untimely. Section 439 (e) of the Family Court Act provides that respondent has 30 days from the entry of the order to file his objections. The running of that period commences with service of notice of entry upon the affected party (see, Matter of Canfield v Canfield, 185 AD2d 611; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Paulino F., 146 Misc 2d 1014). Respondent filed his objections on August 30, 1990. The record fails to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kay v. KayNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  2. Canfield v. CanfieldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  3. Halstead v. HalsteadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
  4. Commissioner of Social Services v. Paulino F.New York City Family Court · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API