Court Opinion

ID: 9950353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 19:15:42.723578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:41.507351
License: Public Domain

Matter of Samples v Manragh (2024 NY Slip Op 01315)

Matter of Samples v Manragh

2024 NY Slip Op 01315

Decided on March 13, 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 March 13, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
ROBERT J. MILLER
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.

2022-07355
 (Docket No. F-3640-21/21A)

[*1]In the Matter of Tiffany A. Samples, respondent,
vRohan G. Manragh, Jr., appellant.

Susan A. DeNatale, Bayport, NY, for appellant.

DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Paul M. Hensley, J.), dated July 29, 2022. The order, in effect, confirmed a finding, in an order of the same court (Aletha V. Fields, S.M.) dated March 15, 2022, made after a hearing, that the father was in willful violation of a prior order of support.
ORDERED that the order dated July 29, 2022, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties are the parents of a child born in 2006. By order dated June 24, 2021, made after a hearing, the father was directed to pay support for the child in the sum of $300 per month. After the father filed objections to the June 24, 2021 order, the Family Court remitted the matter to the Support Magistrate for a hearing on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Neither the father nor counsel appeared for the hearing. In an order dated September 21, 2021, issued upon the father's default, the Support Magistrate, inter alia, adhered to the determination of child support set forth in the June 24, 2021 order. Thereafter, by order dated March 15, 2022, the Support Magistrate determined that the father was in willful violation of the June 24, 2021 order. The father filed objections to the March 15, 2022 order on the ground, among others, that he was entitled to vacatur of the September 21, 2021 order issued upon his default. In an order dated July 29, 2022, the court, in effect, confirmed the finding that the father was in willful violation of the June 24, 2021 order. The father appeals.
The Family Court properly, in effect, confirmed the finding that the father was in willful violation of the June 24, 2021 order. "The proper procedure to challenge an order entered upon a default is to move to vacate the default and, if necessary, appeal from the denial of that motion" (Matter of Wen Zong Yu v Hua Fan, 194 AD3d 943, 944; see CPLR 5015[a][1]).
The father's remaining contentions, raised for the first time on appeal, are not properly before this Court.
DUFFY, J.P., MILLER, DOWLING and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Acting Clerk of the Court