Opinion
2014-06-5
In re AIMEE E.-H., Petitioner–Respondent, v. ALEXANDER H., Respondent–Appellant.
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, for appellant. Preston Stutman & Partners, P.C., New York (Robert Preston of counsel), for respondent.
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, for appellant. Preston Stutman & Partners, P.C., New York (Robert Preston of counsel), for respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., ACOSTA, SAXE, FEINMAN, GISCHE, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa–Lintner, J.), entered on or about April 4, 2013, which denied respondent-appellant's objections to a support magistrate's order finding that respondent willfully violated a child support order, awarding petitioner a money judgment for child support arrears, and directing a good-faith payment of $20,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's admission that he failed to pay court-ordered child support constitutes prima facie evidence of a willful violation of the support order ( see Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 69, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154 [1995] ). Respondent failed to rebut this prima facie evidence with competent, credible evidence of his inability to make the required payments ( see id. at 69–70, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154). Although respondent asserted that his business had failed due to the economic downturn, he failed to provide evidence of his diminished income or show that he thereafter made reasonable efforts “to obtain employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience” (Matter of Heyward v. Goldman, 23 A.D.3d 468, 469, 805 N.Y.S.2d 628 [2d Dept.2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Maria T. v. Kwame A., 35 A.D.3d 239, 240, 826 N.Y.S.2d 42 [1st Dept.2006] ). There is no basis to disturb the credibility findings of the magistrate (In re Bristene B. 102 A.D.3d 562, 959 N.Y.S.2d 131 [1st Dept.2013] ).
The Support Magistrate providently exercised its discretion in directing a good-faith payment of $20,000 ( see e.g. Matter of Gorsky v. Kessler, 79 A.D.3d 746, 747, 912 N.Y.S.2d 649 [2d Dept.2010] ), and in awarding post-petition arrears ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 459).
We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.