Padin v. Padin, 103 A.D.3d 729 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Padin v. Padin, 103 A.D.3d 729 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Long Island Power Authority (nyappdiv, 2016-10-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Long Island Power Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We note that Merrimack’s contention that the Supreme Court should have granted its petition to deem the notice of claim against LIPA to be timely served nunc pro tunc is not properly before this Court on this appeal, as that issue was not determined in the order entered August 13, 2015 (see Matter of Padin v Padin, 103 AD3d 729, 730 [2013]; Grossman v Amalgamated Warbasse Houses, Inc., 21 AD3d 448, 448 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Saldivar v. Cabrera
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The appellant’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court, as it raises an issue not determined by the orders appealed from (see Matter of Padin v Padin, 103 AD3d 729, 730 [2013] ; Matter of Joseph A. [Fausat O.], 78 AD3d 826, 827 [2010]; Matter of Tishauna Patricia N. [Tee Tee Ann W], 68 AD3d 1119, 1120 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Saldivar v. Cabrera
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The appellant’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court, as it raises an issue not determined by the orders appealed from (see Matter of Padin v Padin, 103 AD3d 729, 730 [2013] ; Matter of Joseph A. [Fausat O.], 78 AD3d 826, 827 [2010]; Matter of Tishauna Patricia N. [Tee Tee Ann W], 68 AD3d 1119, 1120 [2009]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Mark Padin
v.
Margaret DePass Padin
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 13, 2013.
103 A.D.3d 729
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

In visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article[*730] 6, and a related family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), dated May 25, 2011, which denied her motion “for final order if decision and order by Judge Klein dated September 20, 2010 is not the final decision and order to terminate the case.”

Ordered that the order dated May 25, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On appeal, the mother makes no argument regarding the propriety of the order dated May 25, 2011. Rather, the mother’s contentions concern the propriety of prior unappealed orders in these proceedings, a custody determination in the parties’ divorce action, and her criminal convictions of criminal trespass in the second degree and assault in the third degree. These contentions are not properly before this Court on appeal, as they raise issues not determined in the order appealed from (see Matter of Joseph A. [Fausat O.], 78 AD3d 826, 827 [2010]; Matter of Tishauna Patricia N. [Tee Tee Ann W.], 68 AD3d 1119, 1119-1120 [2009]; see generally Thompson v Leben Home for Adults, 39 AD3d 624, 626 [2007]; Grossman v Amalgamated Warbasse Houses, Inc., 21 AD3d 448 [2005]). Balkin, J.P., Hall, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.