Opinion
October 27, 1994
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.).
We agree with the Fourth Department that the 30-day period under Family Court Act § 439 (e) to file objections to a Hearing Examiner's order does not begin to run until such order is served with notice of entry (Matter of Canfield v. Canfield, 185 A.D.2d 611), and hold that Family Court should not have denied respondent's objections as untimely absent proof that such 30-day period, so measured, had run. Upon review of the record, we agree with the Hearing Examiner that respondent, who is 26 years old and has two years of college and no demonstrated mental or physical disability or inability to work, other than a lack of desire to do so, should be able to earn the means to support his child (cf., Matter of Beaudoin v. Joseph K., 165 A.D.2d 359). The order's support requirement in excess of the minimum amount is based on respondent's demonstrated past earning ability, is prospective only, and otherwise, reasonable. We modify the health insurance provision of the order to clarify that it is to take effect only if and when respondent becomes employed and eligible for employer-provided insurance for dependents.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.