Falguni P. v. Pinakin P.Falguni P. v. Pinakin P.
The father‘s objection to the Support Magistrate‘s order was properly denied. The parties’ stipulation of settlement provided, inter alia, that petitioner mother had the responsibility of enrolling the child in a medical plan with notice to the father of that plan, and the parties would “share 50/50, any unreimbursed
The father‘s objection to the absence of a full hearing before the Support Magistrate was waived. He never raised this argument before the Family Court (see Matter of Brian QQ., 166 AD2d 749 [1990]; see also Weiner v Weiner, 56 AD3d 293 [2008]). In any event, the record demonstrates that a hearing was held before the Support Magistrate at which the father had a full and fair opportunity to present his arguments. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.