| Matter of White v Knapp |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06913 [66 AD3d 1358] |
| October 2, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Lewis J. White, III, Appellant, v Barbara J. Knapp,Respondent. |
—[*1]
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Bryan R. Hedges, J.), enteredApril 16, 2007 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order deniedpetitioner's objections to the order of the Support Magistrate.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner father filed the underlying petition seeking to recoup excess childsupport payments. After hearing from both the father and respondent mother, a SupportMagistrate issued an order concluding that the father was owed $1,050.41 as excess childsupport payments. The father filed two objections to the Support Magistrate's order, contendingthat the Support Magistrate "did not allow all of the evidence to be presented showingconsiderable overpayment" and that the Support Magistrate disregarded prior orders vacating orterminating arrears. Family Court affirmed the order, determining that the father's first objectionlacked the requisite specificity (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]) and that the father'ssecond objection had no merit.
Contrary to the father's contention, we agree with the court that the first objection lacked therequisite specificity inasmuch as it failed to identify any evidence that the Support Magistraterefused to allow (see id.; seegenerally Matter of Renee XX. v John ZZ., 51 AD3d 1090, 1092 [2008]). We likewisereject the further contention of the father that the Support Magistrate disregarded prior orders.Indeed, in his decision calculating the child support arrears, the Support Magistrate referred tothe orders submitted by the father in support of his petition.
The father further contends that the Support Magistrate's findings are against the weight ofthe evidence and that the father is entitled to recoup sums that the Support Magistrateerroneously deemed to be arrears. Because the father failed to raise those contentions in hiswritten objections to the Support Magistrate's order, those contentions are not properly preserved(see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Juneau v Morzillo, 56 AD3d 1082, 1086 [2008];Renee XX., 51 AD3d at 1092). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Pine andGorski, JJ.