Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Although the father correctly argues that the mother failed to serve his attorney with a copy of her objections to the order dated January 13, 2004 ( see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; CPLR 2103 [b]; Matter of Etuk v. Etuk, 300 AD2d 483), the Family Court noted that the father obtained a copy of those objections, and granted him the full statutory 13-day period ( see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]), to submit his rebuttal. The fact that the father's attorney was not served with a copy of the mother's objections was an irregularity which the Family Court properly disregarded, as the attorney actually obtained a copy of the objections and no prejudice resulted ( see CPLR 2001; Federal Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Torres, 238 AD2d 306, 307; see also Patrician Plastic Corp. v. Bernadel Realty Corp., 25 NY2d 599, 607-608). Therefore, the Family Court did not lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of the mother's objections.