Case Name: In the Matter of Jennifer George, Appellant, v. Jeffrey Neville, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-10-05
Citations: 143 A.D.3d 711
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Jennifer George, Appellant, v Jeffrey Neville, Respondent.
Judges: J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 143
Pages: 711–711

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Jennifer George, Appellant, v Jeffrey Neville, Respondent.
[38 NYS3d 435]

Opinion:
Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Joan S. Posner, J.), dated December 1, 2015. The order denied the mother's objections to an order of that court (Jeanne M. Patsalos, S.M.) entered August 25, 2015, which, upon the parties' consent, granted the mother's petition to modify a prior order of that court (Jeanne M. Patsalos, S.M.) dated November 12, 2014, so as make a judgment against the father for child support arrears payable through the Support Collection Unit.
Ordered that the order dated December 1, 2015, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In an order dated November 12, 2014, the Family Court directed the entry of a judgment in favor of the mother and against the father for child support arrears in the principal sum of $121,950. In that order, the court directed that the judgment was to be payable directly to the mother. Thereafter, the mother petitioned to modify that order so as to make the judgment payable through the Support Collection Unit. In an order entered August 25, 2015, upon the parties' consent, the court granted the petition. The mother filed objections to that order, and, in an order dated December 1, 2015, the court denied her objections.
The Family Court properly denied the mother's objections to the order entered August 25, 2015, as that order was entered upon the consent of the parties (see Matter of Hackett v Paluck, 100 AD3d 898, 899 [2012]; Matter of Cabral v Cabral, 61 AD3d 863, 864 [2009]; Matter of Bien-Aime-Schneider v Schneider, 5 AD3d 763 [2004]; Matter of Proulx v Ardito, 289 AD2d 581 [2001]). Balkin,
J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.