Opinion
2017–01223 Docket No. F–13743–11
12-27-2017
In the Matter of David W. SCOTT, respondent, v. Collette JACQUES–SCOTT, appellant.
Collette Jacques–Scott, Magnolia, Delaware, appellant pro se. David W. Scott, Saint Albans, NY, respondent pro se.
Collette Jacques–Scott, Magnolia, Delaware, appellant pro se.
David W. Scott, Saint Albans, NY, respondent pro se.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Joan L. Piccirillo, J.), dated December 7, 2016. The order denied, as untimely, the mother's objections to an order of that court (David A. Kirshblum, S.M.), dated September 7, 2016, which, after a hearing and upon findings of fact dated August 30, 2016, directed the mother to pay retroactive child support and arrears.ORDERED that the order dated December 7, 2016, is affirmed, with costs.
Although the Family Court should not have denied the mother's objections to the Support Magistrate's order on the ground of untimeliness (see Matter of Hobbs v. Wansley, 143 A.D.3d 1138, 1139, 39 N.Y.S.3d 298 ; Matter of H.M. v. E.T., 89 A.D.3d 848, 849, 932 N.Y.S.2d 364 ), her objections were properly denied on alternative grounds (see Matter of H.M. v. E.T., 89 AD3d at 849, 932 N.Y.S.2d 364 ). Specifically, the mother filed objections relating to the conduct of the hearing and the testimony presented during the hearing, but failed to submit a proper record to enable the Family Court to review the objections and make its own findings of fact (see Family Ct Act § 439[e] ; cf. Matter of Baker v. Rose, 23 A.D.3d 1112, 1113, 804 N.Y.S.2d 885 ).Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother's objections to the order of support.
RIVERA, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.