| Matter of Clark v Clark |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03414 [61 AD3d 1274] |
| April 30, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Kathleen Clark, Respondent, v Michael Clark,Appellant. |
—[*1]
McCarthy, J. Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Powers,J.), entered September 14, 2006, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4,among other things, revoked respondent's suspended sentence of incarceration.
On March 1, 2006, a Support Magistrate found that respondent willfully failed to obey anorder of child support and calculated arrears. Respondent did not file any objections to theSupport Magistrate's order (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]). Thereafter, Family Court(Assini, J.) confirmed the finding of a willful violation and issued a May 1, 2006 ordersentencing him to 90 days in jail, which was suspended on the condition that he pay as ordered.Respondent did not appeal from this order.
Following respondent's failure to comply with the May 1, 2006 order, petitioner brought anapplication to revoke the suspended sentence. The application included a request for counselfees. Following a hearing, Family Court (Powers, J.) revoked the suspended sentence andcommitted respondent to 90 days in jail, but gave him an additional opportunity to purge hiswillful violation by paying approximately $4,300. The court also awarded counsel fees andordered the payment of additional arrears. Two orders were thereafter entered on September 14,2006, namely, an order directing the payment of arrears and an order of commitment.Respondent appeals from both orders.
The sole allegations of error and impropriety raised on appeal relate to the SupportMagistrate's March 1, 2006 order, to which no objections were filed, and the May 1, 2006 [*2]confirmation order, from which no appeal was taken. All argumentsand alleged improprieties stemming from these orders are not properly before this Court (see Matter of Regan v Zalucky, 56AD3d 825, 826-827 [2008]; Matterof St. Lawrence County Dept. of Social Servs. v Pratt, 24 AD3d 1050 [2005], lvdenied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]; Matterof Sales v Brozzo, 3 AD3d 807, 807-808 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 706 [2004];Matter of Dauria v Dauria, 286 AD2d 879, 880 [2001]). There being no other issueraised with respect to either order entered on September 14, 2006, we affirm.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed,without costs.