Matter of Alexander v. Avilez

Matter of Alexander v Avilez (2024 NY Slip Op 06194) Matter of Alexander v Avilez 2024 NY Slip Op 06194 Decided on December 11, 2024 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided on December 11, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department BETSY BARROS, J.P. LARA J. GENOVESI JANICE A. TAYLOR DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ. 2023-12542 (Docket No. F-12659-13) [*1]In the Matter of Aretha Alexander, respondent, v Curtis Avilez, appellant. Curtis Avilez, New York, NY, appellant pro se. DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Jacqueline B. Deane, J.), dated November 21, 2023. The order denied the father's objections to an order of the same court (Nicholas J. Palos, S.M.) dated August 31, 2023, denying his motion to vacate an order of child support dated September 24, 2013. ORDERED that the order dated November 21, 2023, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In January 2023, the father moved to vacate an order of child support dated September 24, 2013. In an order dated August 31, 2023, the Support Magistrate denied the father's motion. On September 22, 2023, the father filed objections to the Support Magistrate's order. The mother did not submit a rebuttal. In an order dated November 21, 2023, the Family Court denied the father's objections on the ground that he failed to file proof of service of his objections on the mother, as required under Family Court Act § 439(e). The father appeals. By failing to timely file proof of service of a copy of his objections upon the mother, the father failed to fulfill a condition precedent for Family Court review of his objections (see Matter of Nizen v Jacobellis, 203 AD3d 719, 720; Matter of Sheridan v Koelmel, 190 AD3d 859, 860; Matter of Hopkins v Hopkins, 178 AD3d 1045, 1046). Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the objections were properly denied and the remaining issues raised by the father on this appeal are not reviewable (see Matter of Sheridan v Koelmel, 190 AD3d at 860; Matter of Hopkins v Hopkins, 178 AD3d at 1046; cf. Matter of Benzaquen v Abraham, 221 AD3d 599, 600). BARROS, J.P., GENOVESI, TAYLOR and GOLIA, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court