IN RE: Aretha ALEXANDER (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Jacqueline B. Deane, J.), dated November 21, 2023.  The order denied the father's objections to an order of the same court (Nicholas J. Palos, S.M.) dated August 31, 2023, denying his motion to vacate an order of child support dated September 24, 2013.

ORDERED that the order dated November 21, 2023, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In January 2023, the father moved to vacate an order of child support dated September 24, 2013.  In an order dated August 31, 2023, the Support Magistrate denied the father's motion.  On September 22, 2023, the father filed objections to the Support Magistrate's order.  The mother did not submit a rebuttal.  In an order dated November 21, 2023, the Family Court denied the father's objections on the ground that he failed to file proof of service of his objections on the mother, as required under Family Court Act § 439(e).  The father appeals.

By failing to timely file proof of service of a copy of his objections upon the mother, the father failed to fulfill a condition precedent for Family Court review of his objections (see Matter of Nizen v. Jacobellis, 203 A.D.3d 719, 720, 160 N.Y.S.3d 621;  Matter of Sheridan v. Koelmel, 190 A.D.3d 859, 860, 136 N.Y.S.3d 760;  Matter of Hopkins v. Hopkins, 178 A.D.3d 1045, 1046, 112 N.Y.S.3d 569).  Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the objections were properly denied and the remaining issues raised by the father on this appeal are not reviewable (see Matter of Sheridan v. Koelmel, 190 A.D.3d at 860, 136 N.Y.S.3d 760;  Matter of Hopkins v. Hopkins, 178 A.D.3d at 1046, 112 N.Y.S.3d 569;  cf.  Matter of Benzaquen v. Abraham, 221 A.D.3d 599, 600, 198 N.Y.S.3d 403).

BARROS, J.P., GENOVESI, TAYLOR and GOLIA, JJ., concur.