| Matter of Bruckstein v Bruckstein |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07928 [78 AD3d 694] |
| November 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Irving Bruckstein, Appellant, v KarenBruckstein, Respondent. |
—[*1] Steven A. Meisner, Garden City, N.Y., for respondent.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from anorder of the Family Court, Nassau County (Singer, J.), dated July 9, 2009, which denied, as untimely,his objections to an order of the same court (Cahn, S.M.), dated March 11, 2009, which denied hispetition for downward modification of his child support obligation.
Ordered that the order dated July 9, 2009, is affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to Family Court Act § 439 (e), objections to an order of a Support Magistratemust be filed within 35 days after the mailing of the order to the aggrieved party (see Matter of Bodouva v Bodouva, 53AD3d 483, 484 [2008]; Matter ofHodges v Hodges, 40 AD3d 639 [2007]). The objections are deemed filed when receivedand "date stamped" by the Family Court (seeMatter of Burke v Burke, 45 AD3d 591, 592 [2007]). Here, the father established that,although the March 11, 2009, order of the Support Magistrate states that it was mailed to him onMarch 12, 2009, it was not actually mailed until March 13, 2009. However, the objections are datestamped as received by the Family Court on April 20, 2009, which is more than 35 days after March13, 2009. Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the objections as untimely. Rivera, J.P.,Covello, Santucci and Sgroi, JJ., concur.