Opinion
August 16, 1999.
Appeal from the Family Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The proof before the Hearing Examiner of the father's failure to pay court-ordered support constituted prima facie evidence of a willful violation of the support order ( see, Family Ct. Act § 434 Fam. Ct. Act [3] [a]; Matter of Department of Social Servs. [Children C.] v. Richard C., 250 A.D.2d 766). Thus, the burden of going forward shifted to the father to offer competent credible evidence of his inability to comply with the order ( see, Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 69; Matter of Bickwid v. Deutsch, 229 A.D.2d 533, 535).
Although the father claimed that he had no money to pay child support because he was not working, the ability to pay support also includes the ability to find employment ( see, Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. [Field] v. Walker, 95 A.D.2d 855). At the hearing in July 1996 the father admitted that he had not been employed for the previous two years and he was not actively seeking any kind of employment. Therefore, the Family Court properly found that the father's failure to seek employment was a willful violation of the support order ( see, Matter of Reed v. Reed, 240 A.D.2d 951, 952; Davenport v. Guardino, 166 A.D.2d 349; Matter of Cox v. Cox, 133 A.D.2d 828).
Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.