Opinion
2017–04937 Docket Nos. F-1990-90/99C/01H, F-3273-99/99A/00H
01-09-2019
In the Matter of Rochelle CARROLL, Respondent, v. Jay BRODSKY, Appellant.
Jay Brodsky, Great Neck, NY, appellant pro se. Feinstein & Naishtut, LLP, Rye Brook, N.Y. (Norman B. Naishtut of counsel), for respondent.
Jay Brodsky, Great Neck, NY, appellant pro se.
Feinstein & Naishtut, LLP, Rye Brook, N.Y. (Norman B. Naishtut of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the order dated March 13, 2017, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The father moved by order to show cause dated November 9, 2016, to vacate a money judgment for child support arrears dated December 20, 2001. After a hearing, the Support Magistrate denied the father's motion with prejudice, determining that there was no legal basis to vacate the money judgment. The father filed objections to the Support Magistrate's order. The Family Court denied the father's objections on the basis that the affidavit of personal service of the objections was defective in that it was "not completed at all" and failed to establish that service of a copy of the objections upon the mother had been properly completed. The father appeals.
We agree with the Family Court's determination to deny the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's order on the procedural ground that he failed to file proof of service of a copy of the objections upon the mother. Family Court Act § 439(e) provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] party filing objections shall serve a copy of such objections upon the opposing party," and that "[p]roof of service upon the opposing party shall be filed with the court at the time of filing of objections and any rebuttal."
By failing to file proof of service of a copy of his objections upon the mother, the father failed to fulfill a condition precedent to filing timely written objections to the Support Magistrate's order and, thus, failed to " ‘exhaust the Family Court procedure for review of [his] objections’ " ( Matter of Semenova v. Semenov, 85 A.D.3d 1036, 1037, 925 N.Y.S.2d 872, quoting Matter of Davidson v. Wilner, 214 A.D.2d 563, 563, 625 N.Y.S.2d 917 ). Consequently, the issues raised by the father on this appeal are not reviewable (see Matter of Ndukwe v. Ogbaegbe, 150 A.D.3d 858, 858, 54 N.Y.S.3d 113 ; Matter of Hamilton v. Hamilton, 112 A.D.3d 715, 716, 976 N.Y.S.2d 218 ; Matter of Lawrence v. Bernier, 100 A.D.3d 634, 953 N.Y.S.2d 270 ; Matter of Semenova v. Semenov, 85 A.D.3d at 1037, 925 N.Y.S.2d 872 ; Matter of Chukwuogo v. Chukwuogo, 46 A.D.3d 558, 846 N.Y.S.2d 639 ).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., AUSTIN, DUFFY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.