Opinion
02-13-2015
In the Matter of Michelle FARRUGGIA, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Sam FARRUGGIA, Sr., Respondent–Appellant.
Spadafora & Verrastro, LLP, Buffalo (Kelly A. Feron of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant.
Spadafora & Verrastro, LLP, Buffalo (Kelly A. Feron of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, and VALENTINO, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Respondent father appeals from an order denying his written objection to the order of the Support Magistrate on petitioner mother's petition to enforce an order of support. In his written objection, the father contended, inter alia, that he should not be required to pay the bills that petitioner mother submitted because “80% of the paperwork was [for bills that were] either already paid by [him] or were bills that were not even medical.” The father failed, however, to identify any particular bill or receipt for which reimbursement should not be ordered, and thus his written objection lacked the requisite specificity (see Matter of White v. Knapp, 66 A.D.3d 1358, 1359, 886 N.Y.S.2d 527 ; see generally Matter of Renee XX. v. John ZZ., 51 A.D.3d 1090, 1092, 857 N.Y.S.2d 770 ). Moreover, the father did not contend in his written objection that the mother's proof was not competent or that she had not paid the bills for which she sought reimbursement, and thus his present contentions to that effect are not properly before us (see Family Ct. Act § 439[e] ; White, 66 A.D.3d at 1359, 886 N.Y.S.2d 527 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.