Opinion
2018–12679 Docket No. F–20905–16/18B
06-19-2019
In the Matter of Carmell E. THOMPSON, Respondent, v. Gaoussou SAVANE, Appellant.
Savane Gaoussou, named herein as Gaoussou Savane, Providence, Rhode Island, appellant pro se.
Savane Gaoussou, named herein as Gaoussou Savane, Providence, Rhode Island, appellant pro se.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SHERI S. ROMAN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERIn a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ben Darvil, Jr., J.), dated September 26, 2018. The order denied the father's objections to an order of the same court (Elizabeth Shamahs, S.M.) dated June 5, 2018, which directed entry of a money judgment in favor of the mother and against him in the principal sum of $3,155.74.
ORDERED that the order dated September 26, 2018, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The mother filed a violation petition against the father for nonpayment of child support. In an order dated June 5, 2018, the Support Magistrate directed entry of a money judgment in favor of the mother and against the father in the principal sum of $3,155.74. The father filed objections to the Support Magistrate's order, alleging that he had not been served with process and that the Family Court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. In an order dated September 26, 2018, the Family Court denied the father's objections. The father appeals.
Family Court Act § 167 provides that "[w]henever a person ... to whom a summons shall have been directed shall physically appear before the court on the return day of such summons, it shall be conclusively presumed that the summons was duly served upon such person ... unless such person or some one in his [or her] behalf shall on such return day make objection to the manner of service." Here, a sheriff's certificate of service demonstrates that the father was served with the summons and notice of petition directing the father to appear in the Family Court on February 16, 2018. The father appeared in court on that date and was identified by the mother, but made no objection to the manner of service. Moreover, the father failed to submit any evidence to substantiate his contention that he is not the named respondent herein. Accordingly, we agree with the denial of the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's order (see Family Ct Act § 167 ; Matter of Jackson v. Idlett, 103 A.D.3d 723, 959 N.Y.S.2d 706 ; see also Matter of Haber v. Haber, 306 A.D.2d 282, 283, 760 N.Y.S.2d 352 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, ROMAN and LASALLE, JJ., concur.