Opinion
December 20, 1993
Appeal from the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court has the discretion to increase child support when a petitioner can show a change in circumstances which warrants the modification in the best interest of the child (see, Matter of Masten v Masten, 150 A.D.2d 693). In the present case, the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the needs of the two growing children had increased. Thus, the Hearing Examiner properly exercised her discretion in concluding that the respondent had established the existence of changed circumstances warranting an upward modification of the appellant's child support obligations (see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132, 141; Matter of Ragazzo v Murray, 175 A.D.2d 247, 248; Hughes v Serviss, 168 A.D.2d 541; Matter of Bruhn v McCready, 138 A.D.2d 374, 376).
We reject the appellant's contention that the Hearing Examiner erred in determining his child support obligation based on an income greater than that claimed by him. A court has the discretion to impute income to a parent where the parent received money, goods or services from a relative or friend (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [iv] [D]; Family Ct Act § 413 [b] [5] [iv] [D]). In the present case, the evidence established that the appellant received such benefits from his present wife. Additionally, in light of the appellant's allegedly reduced income, his failure to supply requested financial information regarding his businesses, and discrepancies between those financial records which he did supply and his income tax return, the Hearing Examiner was justified in finding that the appellant's true income was higher than he reported (see, Felton v Felton, 175 A.D.2d 794; Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 155 A.D.2d 428, 431; Cusimano v Cusimano, 149 A.D.2d 397, 399).
The Hearing Examiner also properly awarded the respondent maintenance in the amount of $100 per month. Contrary to the appellant's contention, the respondent requested such relief in her petition. Moreover, the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the respondent was unable to support herself due to a heart condition and was a public charge. Thus, the respondent sufficiently established circumstances warranting an award of maintenance (see, McMains v McMains, 15 N.Y.2d 283).
We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.