Opinion
May 4, 1998
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Adams, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The father's petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation, dated November 15, 1995, was not a substitute for filing objections to the Hearing Examiner's order of support entered October 27, 1995 (cf., Matter of Rinaldi v. Rinaldi, 239 A.D.2d 506; Matter of Hafford v. Hafford, 162 A.D.2d 890). Also, his objections filed on December 28, 1995, were not timely objections to the order entered October 27, 1995 (see, Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Minka v. Minka, 219 A.D.2d 810; cf., Matter of Scholet v. Newell, 229 A.D.2d 621). Rather, those objections were properly considered to be objections to the Hearing Examiner's order dated December 14, 1995, which, as correctly determined by the Family Court's order dated February 21, 1996, properly denied the father's petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation for failure to prove a change of circumstances.
Thompson, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.