Matter of Barclay v. Hutchinson

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Dean Kusakabe, J.), dated October 8, 2013. The order denied the father’s objections to an order of that court (Elizabeth Shamahs, S.M.) dated May 31, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied his motion to dismiss the mother’s petition seeking enforcement of an out-of-state registered order of child support.

Ordered that the order dated October 8, 2013, is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contentions, the Family Court properly denied his objections to the order denying his motion to dismiss the mother’s petition seeking enforcement of an out-of-state registered order of child support pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (Family Ct Act art 5-B). Where, as here, the nonregistering party either fails to timely contest the registration or enforcement of the order of support or fails to establish a defense under Family Court Act § 580-607 (a), the “registering tribunal” (Family Ct Act § 580-101 [15]) is required to confirm the order (see Family Ct Act §§ 580-605 [b] [3]; 580-606 [b]; 580-607 [c]; see also Matter of Campbell v O’Neil, 266 AD2d 538 [1999]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit.