What did the court decide?

The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order that granted an objection to a support magistrate's order, meaning the higher court found no legal error in the Family Court's decision.

Who is affected by this decision?

The decision directly affects the petitioner, Dana DiFlorio, and the respondent, John Heisler III, in their child support proceeding; it upholds the Family Court's handling of the objection.

Because the appellate court affirmed, the Family Court's disposition stands. Any further change would require a motion for reargument or an appeal to a higher court if available.

Can this decision be appealed further?

A party may seek further review (for example, by applying to the Court of Appeals) subject to the appropriate rules and deadlines, but the Appellate Division's unanimous affirmance makes further relief uncertain.

Matter of DiFlorio v. Heisler

Docket 304 CAF 24-02030

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

FamilyAffirmed

Filed: Apr 24, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Family
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02566
Docket: 304 CAF 24-02030

Appeal from a Family Court order granting petitioner's written objection to a support magistrate's order in a Family Court article 4 proceeding

Summary

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Family Court order that granted the petitioner's written objection to a support magistrate's October 7, 2024 order in a Family Court child support proceeding. The appeal was taken by the respondent from the Family Court's November 27, 2024 order. The appellate court unanimously affirmed without costs, signaling it found no reversible error in the Family Court's disposition of the objection to the support magistrate's ruling.

Issues Decided

Whether the Family Court properly granted the petitioner's written objection to the support magistrate's October 7, 2024 order
Whether any error in the support magistrate's order required reversal of the Family Court's decision

Court's Reasoning

The appellate court reviewed the Family Court's decision granting the petitioner's written objection and found no reversible error in that ruling. Because the Appellate Division affirmed unanimously and without costs, the court implicitly concluded that the Family Court acted within its discretion in resolving the objection and that the record did not demonstrate legal or factual error warranting reversal. No further factual or legal basis for upsetting the Family Court's order was identified in the opinion.

Parties

Petitioner: Dana DiFlorio
Respondent: John Heisler, III
Attorney: Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society (Thomas R. Babilon of counsel)
Judge: Diane E. Plumley
Judge: Lindley, J.P.
Judge: Curran
Judge: Ogden
Judge: Nowak
Judge: Delconte

Key Dates

Support magistrate order: 2024-10-07
Family Court order appealed from: 2024-11-27
Appellate decision: 2026-04-24

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult counsel about further review
If the respondent wishes to challenge the Appellate Division's decision, they should consult their attorney immediately to evaluate grounds and deadlines for seeking further review or permission to appeal to a higher court.
2
Comply with the Family Court order
The parties should follow whatever directives the Family Court order requires regarding support until and unless a higher court changes the outcome.
3
Consider application for reargument
If counsel believes the appellate decision overlooked controlling law or facts, they can consider filing a motion for reargument in the Appellate Division within the prescribed time.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order that granted an objection to a support magistrate's order, meaning the higher court found no legal error in the Family Court's decision.
Who is affected by this decision?: The decision directly affects the petitioner, Dana DiFlorio, and the respondent, John Heisler III, in their child support proceeding; it upholds the Family Court's handling of the objection.
What happens next?: Because the appellate court affirmed, the Family Court's disposition stands. Any further change would require a motion for reargument or an appeal to a higher court if available.
Can this decision be appealed further?: A party may seek further review (for example, by applying to the Court of Appeals) subject to the appropriate rules and deadlines, but the Appellate Division's unanimous affirmance makes further relief uncertain.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Matter of DiFlorio v Heisler - 2026 NY Slip Op 02566

Matter of DiFlorio v Heisler

2026 NY Slip Op 02566

April 24, 2026

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

IN THE MATTER OF DANA DIFLORIO, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

v

JOHN HEISLER, III, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on April 24, 2026

304 CAF 24-02030

Present: Lindley, J.P., Curran, Ogden, Nowak, And Delconte, JJ.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (THOMAS R. BABILON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Diane E. Plumley, J.), entered November 27, 2024, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order, among other things, granted petitioner's written objection to an order of the support magistrate entered October 7, 2024.

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

Entered: April 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn