From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Proulx v. Ardito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 31, 2001
289 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2001-11007, 2001-03983

Submitted December 12, 2001.

December 31, 2001.

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered April 5, 2001, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Livrieri, H.E.), dated February 9, 2001, which, upon the stipulation of the parties, inter alia, set the amount of child support to be paid by the father.

Samuelson, Hause Samuelson, LLP, Garden City, N Y (Richard L. Hause of counsel), for appellant.

Miller Apfel, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Dennis M. Apfel of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, NANCY E. SMITH, THOMAS A. ADAMS, A. GAIL PRUDENTI, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The order dated February 9, 2001, indicates that it was issued pursuant to a stipulation of the parties made on the record and settling all the issues raised by the petition. It was therefore an order entered on consent and the Family Court properly held that the appellant could not file objections to it (see, Matter of Benerofe v. Wechsler, 281 A.D.2d 476; Matter of Larkin-King v. King, 159 A.D.2d 626).

KRAUSMAN, J.P., LUCIANO, SMITH, ADAMS and PRUDENTI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Proulx v. Ardito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 31, 2001
289 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

In the Matter of Proulx v. Ardito

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF BONITA PROULX, Appellant, v. LORENZO ARDITO, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 31, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
735 N.Y.S.2d 789

Citing Cases

In the Matter of J.A.E. v. A.B

Further, because the respondent raised no objections to the amount of the support order when he appeared…

In Matter of Janet E. v. Antonio B.

Stueben Cnty Dept. Of Soc. Servs. v. Bartholomew, 2 AD3d 1434, 768 NYS2d 908 (4th Dept 2003), Oropallo v.…