Hyperlawhypertext legal database Kimelfeld v. Menczelesz 137 A.D.3d 914

← Cases

Kimelfeld v. Menczelesz

137 A.D.3d 914 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2016-03-09 English

Judges Mastro, J.P., Hall, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Contents

Majority

p. 914
In the Matter of Anna Kimelfeld, Respondent, v Gabor Menczelesz, Appellant.
[25 NYS3d 901]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (W. Franc Perry, J.), dated April 28, 2015. The order denied, as untimely, the father’s objections to an order of that court (Elizabeth Shamahs, S.M.) dated February 26, 2015.

Ordered that the order dated April 28, 2015 is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 alleging that the father violated the child support provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce. In an order dated February 26, 2015, a Support Magistrate enforced the father’s support obligation, modifying it only to the extent of directing him to make payments through the Support Collection Unit. In the order appealed from, the Family Court denied, as untimely, the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order. The father appeals.

Objections to an order of a Support Magistrate must be filed

p. 915
within 35 days after the date on which the order is mailed to the objecting party (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Babb v Darnley, 123 AD3d 1028 , 1029 [2014]; Matter of Heuser v Chavez, 117 AD3d 738 , 738 [2014]; Matter of Xiao-Lan Ma v Washington, 112 AD3d 957 , 957-958 [2013]). On this record, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections as untimely and refused to consider them (see Matter of Yalvac v Williams, 131 AD3d 622 [2015]; Matter of Babb v Darnley, 123 AD3d at 1029 ; Matter of Hodges v Hodges, 40 AD3d 639 , 639 [2007]; cf. Matter of Bruckstein v Bruckstein, 78 AD3d 694 [2010]).

Mastro, J.P., Hall, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cases cited