Opinion
03-20-2024
In the Matter of Ngozi DODD, respondent, v. Norman G. DODD, appellant.
Norman Dodd, named herein as Norman G. Dodd, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.
Norman Dodd, named herein as Norman G. Dodd, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., LINDA CHRISTOPHER, LARA J. GENOVESI, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Alan Beckoff, J.), dated March 16, 2023. The order denied, as untimely, the husband’s objections to an order of the same court (Nicholas J. Palos, S.M.) dated January 3, 2023, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed him to pay spousal support in the amount of $806 per month.
ORDERED that the order dated March 16, 2023, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties were married in 2016 and have no children together. In 2019, the wife commenced this support proceeding against the husband. In an order dated January 3, 2023 (hereinafter the January 3 order), after a hearing, the Support Magistrate, inter alia, directed the husband to pay spousal support in the amount of $806 per month. On February 14, 2023, the husband filed objections to the January 3 order. In an order dated March 16, 2023, the Family Court denied the husband’s objections as untimely. The husband appeals.
[1, 2] Objections to an order of a Support Magistrate must be filed within 35 days after the date on which the order is mailed to the objecting party (see Family Ct Act § 439[e]; Matter of Jones v. Jones, 198 A.D.3d 779, 780, 152 N.Y.S.3d 625; Matter of Maslak v. Purdum, 185 A.D.3d 826, 827, 125 N.Y.S.3d 290). Contrary to the husband’s contention, the postmark date did not establish that the January 3 order was not mailed on January 3, 2023 (see Kings Park Classroom Teachers Assn. v. Kings Park Cent School Dist., 63 N.Y.2d 742, 480 N.Y.S.2d 201, 469 N.E.2d 522; Matter of Ferone v. Magnussen, 186 A.D.3d 1685, 1686, 129 N.Y.S.3d 812).
Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied, as untimely, the husband’s objections to the January 3 order (see Family Ct Act § 439[e]; Matter of Ferone v. Magnussen, 186 A.D.3d at 1686, 129 N.Y.S.3d 812; Matter of Bosse v. Simpson, 173 A.D.3d 856, 857, 100 N.Y.S.3d 539).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the husband’s remaining contentions.
DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, GENOVESI and VENTURA, JJ., concur.