| Matter of Heuser v Chavez |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03267 [117 AD3d 738] |
| May 7, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Kristina S. Heuser,Appellant, v Gregory Chavez, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter ofGregory Chavez, Respondent, v Kristina S. Heuser, Appellant. (Proceeding No.2.) |
Kristina S. Heuser, Locust Valley, N.Y., appellant pro se.
In related child support proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, themother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Singer, J.), datedMarch 13, 2012, which denied, as untimely, (a) her objections to an order of the samecourt (Cahn, S.M.), dated November 14, 2011, which, after a hearing, found that thefather was not in willful violation of a support order dated September 18, 2009, (b) herobjections to an order of the same court (Cahn, S.M.), also dated November 14, 2011,which granted her petition to modify the order of support dated September 18, 2009, onlyto the extent of directing the father to contribute 29% of the reasonable child careexpenses, and (c) her objections to an order of the same court (Cahn, S.M.), datedNovember 15, 2011, which granted the father's motion for a downward modification ofhis monthly child support obligations from $1,900 to $313, plus 29% of unreimbursedhealth care expenses.
Ordered that the order dated March 13, 2012, is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
Objections to an order of a Support Magistrate must be filed within 35 days of thedate on which the order is mailed to the objecting party (see Family Ct Act§ 439 [e]; Matterof Bruckstein v Bruckstein, 78 AD3d 694, 694 [2010]; Matter of Bodouva v Bodouva,53 AD3d 483, 484 [2008]; Matter of Burke v Burke, 45 AD3d 591, 592 [2007]; Matter of Hodges v Hodges, 40AD3d 639, 639 [2007]). Here, it is undisputed that the mother filed her writtenobjections to the Support Magistrate's orders more than 35 days after they were mailed toher. The mother's contention that the objections were not untimely because the ordershad been mailed to her attorney rather than to her is without merit (see Matter of Etukv Etuk, 300 AD2d 483, 484 [2002]).
The mother's remaining contentions regarding the timing of the filing of theobjections are without merit.
[*2] Accordingly,the Family Court properly denied the mother's objections as untimely (see Matter ofBruckstein v Bruckstein, 78 AD3d at 694; Matter of Bodouva v Bodouva, 53AD3d at 484; Matter of Burke v Burke, 45 AD3d at 592; Matter of Hodges vHodges, 40 AD3d at 639).
We decline the mother's request that we exercise our power pursuant to CPLR 5019(a) to correct mistakes, defects, or irregularities so as to modify the Support Magistrate'sorder relating to child care expenses (see Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879,881 [1995]; Chmelovsky vCountry Club Homes, Inc., 111 AD3d 874, 874-875 [2013]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Country WideIns. Co., 81 AD3d 700, 701 [2011]; Matter of Owens v Stuart, 292AD2d 677 [2002]). Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.