Heuser v. Chavez

• Decision Date: 07 May 2014
• Citation: 117 A.D.3d 738,984 N.Y.S.2d 611,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03267
• Parties: In the Matter of Kristina S. HEUSER, appellant, v. Gregory CHAVEZ, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Gregory Chavez, respondent, v. Kristina S. Heuser, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

117 A.D.3d 738

984 N.Y.S.2d 611

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03267

In the Matter of Kristina S. HEUSER, appellant,

v.Gregory CHAVEZ, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of Gregory Chavez, respondent,

v.Kristina S. Heuser, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2).

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

May 7, 2014.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREKristina S. Heuser, Locust Valley, N.Y., appellant pro se.

In related child support proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Singer, J.), dated March 13, 2012, which denied, as untimely, (a) her objections to an order of the same court (Cahn, S.M.), dated November 14, 2011, which, after a hearing, found that the father was not in willful violation of a support order dated September 18, 2009, (b) her objections to an order of the same court (Cahn, S.M.), also dated November 14, 2011, which granted her petition to modify the order of support dated September 18, 2009, only to the extent of directing the father to contribute 29% of the reasonable child care expenses, and (c) her objections to an order of the same court (Cahn, S.M.), dated November 15, 2011, which granted the father's motion for a downward modification of his monthly child support obligations from $1,900 to $313, plus 29% of unreimbursed health care expenses.

ORDERED that the order dated March 13, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Objections to an order of a Support Magistrate must be filed within 35 days of the date on which the order is mailed to the objecting party ( see Family Ct. Act § 439[e]; Matter of Bruckstein v. Bruckstein, 78 A.D.3d 694, 694, 909 N.Y.S.2d 923;Matter of Bodouva v. Bodouva, 53 A.D.3d 483, 484, 861 N.Y.S.2d 137;Matter of Burke v. Burke, 45 A.D.3d 591, 592, 844 N.Y.S.2d 715;Matter of Hodges v. Hodges, 40 A.D.3d 639, 639, 833 N.Y.S.2d 396). Here, it is undisputed that the mother filed her written objections to the Support Magistrate's orders more than 35 days after they were mailed to her. The mother's contention that the objections were not untimely because the orders had been mailed to her attorney rather than to her is without merit ( see Matter of Etuk v. Etuk, 300 A.D.2d 483, 484, 751 N.Y.S.2d 566).

The mother's remaining contentions regarding the timing of the filing of the objections are without merit.

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother's objections as untimely ( see Matter of Bruckstein v. Bruckstein, 78 A.D.3d at 694, 909 N.Y.S.2d 923;Matter of Bodouva v. Bodouva, 53 A.D.3d at 484, 861 N.Y.S.2d 137;Matter of Burke v....