BILL NUMBER: S8176REVISED 5/27/25

SPONSOR: PERSAUD
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the family court act, in relation to the time limit for
appeals in all categories of family court cases and for the filing of
objections to support magistrate determinations in child support, pater-
nity and parentage proceedings in family court

2.  
SOURCE OF BILL:  This bill is being introduced at the request of
the Unified Court System.

3.  
PURPOSE OF BILL:  This bill ensures that there are definite, objec-
tive time limits for the filing of notices of appeal in all Family Court
case categories and for the filing of, and judicial rulings upon,
objections to Support Magistrate orders in child support, paternity and
parentage cases.

4.  
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

              

Section 1 of the bill amends Family Court Act § 439(e) to provide that
where Support Magistrate orders are electronically transmitted,
objections must be filed within 35 days after the transmission.
Language is also added in order to clarify that the objections and
rebuttal, if any, must be served upon the other parties by a non-party
over the age of 18. It further provides that Family Court judges must
rule on the objections within 35 days after filing.

Section 2 of the bill amends Family Court Act § 1113 to provide that
where orders of the Family Court are electronically transmitted, a
notice of appeal, if any, must be filed within 35 days after the trans-
mission and that a statement disclosing this time limit must appear on
the face of all orders.

Section 3 establishes an effective date of 120 days after enactment.

5.  
JUSTIFICATION:

This bill adds clarity to the law by providing needed time limits for
filing notices of appeal in all Family Court case categories and for the
filing of objections to Support Magistrate determinations, and provides
a more objective, reasonable deadline for rulings on child support
objections by Family Court judges.

During the pandemic and continuing to the present day, Family Courts
have been sending orders in all categories of cases electronically when-
ever the Courts have email addresses for parties and/or their attorneys.
Electronic transmission of documents has further increased with the
rapidly expanding implementation of electronic filing programs in Family
Courts in New York City and several counties upstate. However, in two
recent cases the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, held that the
court's service of orders by email, rather than in court or by mail, did
not start the time period within which a notice of appeal must be filed.
See Matter of Bukowski v.  Florentino, 176 A.D.3d 812 (4th Dept., 2022);
Matter of Grayson S.  (Thomas S.), 209 A.D.3d 1309 (4th Dept., 2022). In
Matter of Grayson S., the Fourth Department reasoned:


Inasmuch as the father was served the order by the court via email,
which is not a method provided for in Family Court Act 1113, and there
is no indication that he was served by any of the methods authorized by
the statute, we conclude that the time to take an appeal did not begin
to run and that it cannot be said that the father's appeal is untimely
(see Batts, 198 AD3d at 751; Matter of Tynell S., 43 AD3d 1171, 1172 (2d
Dept 2007)).

This bill would remedy that gap by providing that the electronic trans-
mission of an order, like the mailing of an order, triggers a 35-day
time limit for filing a notice of appeal. The bill would also add a
reference to electronic transmission to the notice regarding the time
limit for taking an appeal that is required to appear on all orders.

A similar gap exists in Family Court Act § 439(e) with respect to the
time limit for the filing of objections to Support Magistrate rulings in
child support, paternity and parentage proceedings. Recognizing the
importance of giving clear guidance regarding applicable deadlines in
Family Court proceedings, especially in light of the large percentage of
litigants without attorneys, this bill would provide that the electronic
transmission of an order, like the mailing of an order, triggers a
35-day time limit for the filing of objections. As the United States
Supreme Court held in Turner v.  Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011), procedures
in civil child support proceedings must satisfy the precept of "funda-
mental fairness," a precept clearly applicable to all categories of
Family Court proceedings.

Additionally, this bill simplifies the time limit for Family Court judg-
es to rule on objections filed regarding Support Magistrate determi-
nations. Currently, the statute requires judges to rule on child support
objections either within 15 days after submission of a rebuttal or, if
none has been submitted, within 15 days after the expiration of the
rebuttal period. In each case, the court must assess which time limit
for ruling on objections is applicable. This bill eliminates this extra
consideration by amending Family Court Act § 439(e) to provide that
objections must be ruled upon within 35 days after the date the
objection is filed, a predictable, consistent standard that would apply
regardless of whether a rebuttal has been filed in a particular case.

6.  
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

This bill passed the Senate in both 2021 and 2022
(S.6824(Persaud)/A.7795(Wallace) and in 2024 (S.9712 Persaud)/A.10571
Lavine)).

7.  
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

This bill would have no fiscal impact on the State or local governments.

8.  
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This bill would take effect on the 120th day after enactment.