From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Roman v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 2004
8 A.D.3d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2001-07589.

Decided June 7, 2004.

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Edlitz, J.), dated July 11, 2001, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Kava, H.E.), dated May 11, 2001, dismissing his petitions for modification of his child support obligation without prejudice.

Robert E. Fern, Elmsford, N.Y., for appellant.

William E. Penny, Scarsdale, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that his petitions for modification of his child support obligation were premature.

To the extent that the father requests that this court vacate or nullify a separate order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated May 4, 2000, we lack jurisdiction to review such order as the father did not appeal from it ( see Palumbo v. Palumbo, 298 A.D.2d 373).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.

S. MILLER, J.P., ADAMS, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Roman v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 2004
8 A.D.3d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Roman v. Roman

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF JEAN-JOSEPH ROMAN, appellant, v. TAMAR ROMAN, respondent…

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

Date published: Jun 7, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
777 N.Y.S.2d 746

Citing Cases

Parra v. Paint Co.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary…

In the Matter of Guzzi v. Giacalone

The Hearing Examiner's determination was supported by the record ( see Matter of Culton v. Parker, 4 AD3d…