IN RE: ZHUO HONG ZHENG (2019)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the orders dated April 3, 2017, and July 12, 2017, are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, seeking child support from the father for the parties' child.  The hearing date was adjourned to give the father an opportunity to hire an attorney and provide financial disclosure.  The father appeared on the adjourned date but failed to provide any financial disclosure.  In an order dated June 26, 2013, the Support Magistrate directed the father to pay $426.70 per month in child support based on the needs of the child.  In an order dated April 18, 2014, the Support Magistrate denied the father's motion for a downward modification of his child support obligation.  In an order dated November 25, 2016, the Support Magistrate denied the father's motions to vacate the order dated June 26, 2013.  The father appeals from an order of the Family Court dated April 3, 2017, which denied his objections to the Support Magistrate's orders dated June 26, 2013, April 18, 2014, and November 25, 2016.  The father also appeals from an order of the Family Court dated July 12, 2017, which denied his objections to an order of the Support Magistrate dated May 1, 2017, which, after a hearing, denied the father's second motion for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

We agree with the Family Court's determination to deny, as untimely, the father's objection to the order dated June 26, 2013 (see Family Ct. Act § 439[e] ).

It is unclear whether the father's objections to the order dated April 18, 2014, were timely, as the record does not reflect whether he was ever served with the order.  Nevertheless, on the merits, we agree with the Family Court's denial of his objections to that order.  The Support Magistrate's findings that the father failed to establish that he was seeking employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience, or that his alleged medical conditions prevented him from doing so, are supported by the record (see Matter of Straker v. Maynard–Straker, 133 A.D.3d 865, 21 N.Y.S.3d 288;  Matter of Rodriguez v. Mendoza–Gonzalez, 96 A.D.3d 766, 767, 946 N.Y.S.2d 204;  Matter of Riendeau v. Riendeau, 95 A.D.3d 891, 892, 943 N.Y.S.2d 215;  Matter of Shvetsova v. Paderno, 84 A.D.3d 1095, 1096, 923 N.Y.S.2d 202).

We agree with the Family Court's denial of the father's objections to the order dated November 25, 2016, which denied his motions to vacate the order of support dated June 26, 2013.  Contrary to the father's argument, the order of support was not entered on the father's default.  We agree with the Support Magistrate's rejection of the father's contention that he was unable to understand the interpreter provided to him (see People v. Rios, 57 A.D.3d 501, 502, 868 N.Y.S.2d 295;  People v. Warcha, 17 A.D.3d 491, 493, 792 N.Y.S.2d 627).

We agree with the Family Court's denial of the father's objections to the order dated May 1, 2017.  The father failed to establish that his second motion for a downward modification of his child support obligation should have been granted (see Douglas v. Douglas, 7 A.D.3d 481, 776 N.Y.S.2d 90;  Matter of McCarthy v. McCarthy, 2 A.D.3d 735, 769 N.Y.S.2d 590).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.

RIVERA, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., concur.