The Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to an order of a support magistrate on the ground of improper service. The father did not claim or bring forward evidence that he attempted to serve his objections upon the mother by any other means besides email, which was not a permissible method of service since the mother was not represented by counsel (see CPLR 2103(c)). Since the father failed to serve his objections upon the mother pursuant to CPLR 2103(c), his proof of service was deficient (see Family Ct Act § 439(e)). The father did not meet the condition precedent to filing timely written objections, and thus, “failed to exhaust the Family Court procedure for review of his objections” (Matter of Ishmael A.A.-S. v. Sacha C., 169 AD3d 662, 663; see Matter of Sheridan v. Koelmel, 190 AD3d 859, 860; Matter of Simpson v. Gelin, 48 AD3d 693; Matter of Chukwuogo v. Chukwuogo, 46 AD3d 558). As a result, the father’s arguments in relation to the merits of his objections are not reviewable (see Matter of Ishmael A.A.-S. v. Sacha C., 169 AD3d at 663; Matter of Carroll v. Brodsky, 168 AD3d 727, 728).