Opinion
11-09-2017
In the Matter of Kathleen PHALEN, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Joseph ROBINSON, III, Respondent–Appellant.
Justin S. White, Williamsville, for Respondent–Appellant. Kathleen Phalen, Petitioner–Respondent Pro Se.
Justin S. White, Williamsville, for Respondent–Appellant.
Kathleen Phalen, Petitioner–Respondent Pro Se.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 alleging that respondent father violated his child support obligations by refusing to pay certain dental expenses for the parties' child. At the ensuing hearing, the Support Magistrate, over the father's objections, permitted a dentist to testify telephonically regarding the child's need for dental treatment. Contrary to the father's contention, we cannot say that the Support Magistrate abused her broad discretion in permitting the dentist's telephonic testimony under these circumstances (see generally Family Ct. Act § 433[c][iii] ; Matter of Rodriguez v. Feldman, 126 A.D.3d 1557, 1558, 6 N.Y.S.3d 847 [4th Dept.2015] ; Matter of Eileen R. [Carmine S.], 79 A.D.3d 1482, 1485, 912 N.Y.S.2d 350 [3d Dept.2010] ). Moreover, the father was not prejudiced by a ministerial error on the dentist's application for leave to testify by telephone.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, and TROUTMAN, JJ., concur.