IN RE: JOHN M.S. (2008)

 Respondent mother appeals from an order denying her objections to an order enforcing that part of a prior support order allocating the income tax dependency exemption for the parties' child to petitioner father pursuant to the parties' stipulation.   We agree with the mother that Family Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enforce that part of the support order.  “Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, [and] it cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute” (Matter of Howard v. Janowski, 226 A.D.2d 1087, 1087, 641 N.Y.S.2d 940;  see also Kleila v. Kleila, 50 N.Y.2d 277, 282, 428 N.Y.S.2d 896, 406 N.E.2d 753).   With respect to the enforcement of support orders, “[t]he summary enforcement procedures of Family Court Act article 4 apply only to payments that in fact constitute ‘support’ or ‘maintenance’ ” (Howard, 226 A.D.2d at 1087, 641 N.Y.S.2d 940).   Here, the father's entitlement to claim the child as a dependent for income tax purposes is not an element of support set forth in Family Court Act article 4, and thus the court lacks jurisdiction to enforce that part of the support order (see § 413[1];  §§ 416, 454;  see also Iseman v. Iseman, 48 A.D.2d 809, 810, 369 N.Y.S.2d 413, appeal dismissed 37 N.Y.2d 918, 378 N.Y.S.2d 388, 340 N.E.2d 748).   The father must seek enforcement of the parties' stipulation to allow the father to claim the child as his dependent for income tax purposes by way of a plenary action in Supreme Court (see Howard, 226 A.D.2d at 1088, 641 N.Y.S.2d 940).   We therefore reverse the order, grant the objections and dismiss the petition.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the mother's remaining contentions.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the objections are granted and the petition is dismissed.

MEMORANDUM: