Opinion
2018–09757 Docket Nos. F–2708–06/17F/17G
04-03-2019
In the Matter of Margaret COMOLETTI, Respondent, v. Rocco PAPAPIETRO, Jr., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Rocco Papapietro, Jr., appellant, v. Margaret Comoletti, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)
Rocco Papapietro, Jr., Staten Island, NY, appellant pro se.
Rocco Papapietro, Jr., Staten Island, NY, appellant pro se.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERIn related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Arnold Lim, J.), dated July 9, 2018. The order denied the father's objections to two orders of the same court (Janele Hyer–Spencer, S.M.), both dated April 12, 2018, which, inter alia, after a hearing, and upon the parties' consent, respectively, granted that branch of the mother's petition which was to enforce certain provisions of an order of support dated July 26, 2010, and directed the father to pay $10,000 in satisfaction of all arrears for unreimbursed health care expenses at the rate of $150 per month, and granted that branch of the father's petition which was for a downward modification of his child support obligation only to the extent of reducing his obligation to the sum of $95 per week.
ORDERED that the order dated July 9, 2018, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties, who have two children together, were divorced by a judgment of divorce dated May 16, 2005. An order of support dated July 26, 2010, set forth the parties' child support obligations. In an order dated March 19, 2016, the father's child support obligation was increased due to a cost of living adjustment, effective May 27, 2016. In October 2017, the mother filed a petition seeking, among other things, to enforce certain provisions of the order of support dated July 26, 2010. Subsequently, the father filed a petition seeking a downward modification of his child support obligation.
During a hearing before a Support Magistrate, the parties agreed to resolve the petitions. The Support Magistrate issued two orders on consent, both dated April 12, 2018. The father filed objections to the orders. In an order dated July 9, 2018, the Family Court denied the father's objections, inter alia, based upon the parties' consent to the orders dated April 12, 2018. The father appeals.
Contrary to the father's contention, under the circumstances of this case, he was not deprived of his right to counsel (see Family Ct. Act §§ 262[a][vi] ; 454[2][a]; Matter of Brunelle v. Bibeau, 18 A.D.3d 927, 928, 795 N.Y.S.2d 362 ; cf. Matter of Scott v. Scott, 62 A.D.3d 714, 715, 879 N.Y.S.2d 488 ). Moreover, the Support Magistrate providently exercised her discretion in denying the father's request for an adjournment (see generally People v. Arroyave, 49 N.Y.2d 264, 271, 425 N.Y.S.2d 282, 401 N.E.2d 393 ; Greenberg v. Greenberg, 144 A.D.3d 625, 630–631, 41 N.Y.S.3d 49 ; Matter of Albert v. Albert, 101 A.D.3d 1112, 1112, 955 N.Y.S.2d 884 ).We agree with the Family Court's determination to deny the father's objections to the orders dated April 12, 2018, as the orders were entered upon the consent of the parties (see Matter of George v. Neville, 143 A.D.3d 711, 711, 38 N.Y.S.3d 435 ; Matter of Herczegh v. Capolino, 140 A.D.3d 957, 958, 32 N.Y.S.3d 512 ; Matter of Hackett v. Paluck, 100 A.D.3d 898, 899, 953 N.Y.S.2d 897 ; Matter of Cabral v. Cabral, 61 A.D.3d 863, 864, 878 N.Y.S.2d 389 ). To the extent that the father contends that he consented to the orders under duress, his remedy is to move in the Family Court to vacate the orders (see Matter of Rumple v. Powell, 158 A.D.3d 1028, 1028, 71 N.Y.S.3d 678 ; Matter of Sasha J.J. [Danielle L.], 144 A.D.3d 681, 682, 39 N.Y.S.3d 828 ; Elsayed v. Edrees, 141 A.D.3d 503, 504, 35 N.Y.S.3d 411 ).
BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.