Opinion
No. 2021-07656 Docket No. F-6317-20
08-03-2022
In the Matter of Radha M. Kattayam, respondent, v. Suresh B. Kattayam, appellant.
Suresh B. Kattayam, Plainview, NY, appellant pro se.
Suresh B. Kattayam, Plainview, NY, appellant pro se.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, WILLIAM G. FORD, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Danielle M. Peterson, J.), dated September 1, 2021. The order denied the husband's objections to so much of an order of the same court (Elizabeth A. Bloom, S.M.) dated June 28, 2021, as, upon the parties' consent, directed him to pay spousal support to the wife in the sum of $318.61 per month.
ORDERED that the order dated September 1, 2021, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties were married in 2009 and have one child together. In October 2020, the wife commenced this support proceeding against the husband. The Support Magistrate issued an order on consent dated June 28, 2021, which, inter alia, directed the husband to pay spousal support to the wife in the sum of $318.61 per month. The husband filed objections to so much of the order as directed him to pay spousal support. In an order dated September 1, 2021, the Family Court denied the husband's objections based upon the parties' consent to the Support Magistrate's order. The husband appeals.
The Family Court properly denied the husband's objections to so much of the Support Magistrate's order as directed him to pay spousal support, since the order was entered upon the consent of the parties (see Matter of Abizadeh v Abizadeh, 176 A.D.3d 933, 934; Matter of Comoletti v Papapietro, 171 A.D.3d 745, 746; Matter of George v Neville, 143 A.D.3d 711, 711). To the extent that the husband contends that he did not voluntarily consent to the Support Magistrate's order, his remedy is to move in the Family Court to vacate the order (see Matter of Comoletti v Papapietro, 171 A.D.3d at 746; Matter of Sasha J.J. [Danielle L.], 144 A.D.3d 681, 682).
The husband failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Family Court was biased against him and unable to review the Support Magistrate's order objectively and impartially (see Matter of Berg v Berg, 166 A.D.3d 763, 765; Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.], 140 A.D.3d 893, 894). In any event, the record does not reflect that the Family Court was biased against the husband (see Matter of Esposito v Rosa, 172 A.D.3d 858, 859).
CONNOLLY, J.P., ROMAN, FORD and WAN, JJ., concur.