Opinion
March 9, 1998
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly relied upon the determination of the Hearing Examiner, who was in an unique position to hear and observe the witnesses, and whose determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless no fair interpretation of the evidence can support the findings ( see, Matter of Reed v. Reed, 240 A.D.2d 951; Matter of Stone v. Stone, 236 A.D.2d 615; Matter of Stanziano v. Stanziano, 235 A.D.2d 845). The evidence showed that the father's alleged financial inability to comply with the support order was a fabrication, and was contradicted, inter alia, by the comfortable lifestyle he led with his girlfriend, the mother's unrebutted testimony of a questionable transfer of real property to his family for a consideration of $10, the "loss" of his video business due to market forces when another viable video store operates in its place, and his receipt of unreported income from several sources ( see, Stempler v. Stempler, 233 A.D.2d 435; Matter of Fierro v. Fierro, 211 A.D.2d 676, 677-679).
The father's claims of his search for employment were largely unsubstantiated or refer to efforts that lacked diligence.
Rosenblatt, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.