IN RE: AUSTIN JOHNSON (2016)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

IN RE: AUSTIN JOHNSON, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. SHERRY PRICHARD, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.
IN RE: SHERRY PRICHARD, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT, v. AUSTIN JOHNSON, RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
IN RE: SHERRY PRICHARD, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT, v. AUSTIN JOHNSON, RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.

CAF 14–01288

Decided: March 18, 2016

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

PAUL M. DEEP, UTICA, FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN G. KOSLOSKY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, UTICA.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for the reasons stated in the decision at Family Court. We add only that we reject the contention of petitioner-respondent father that the Court Attorney Referee did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. The parties and their attorneys signed a stipulation in 2012 setting forth that a judicial hearing officer or court attorney referee would hear and determine the custody matter and “all future modifications/violation proceedings concerning this action,” and thus the Referee did not err in denying the father's oral request that the matter be heard by a Family Court judge (see Matter of Johnson v. Streich–McConnell, 66 AD3d 1526, 1527).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network