Opinion
August 29, 1988
Appeal from the Family Court, Putnam County (Braatz, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by the Hearing Examiner, Susan Bauer Brofman, in her memorandum decision dated November 12, 1986.
We would additionally note that this court has previously rejected the argument advanced by the petitioner that the recent amendment to Domestic Relations Law § 241 should be retroactively applied to vacate the prior court order canceling the arrears in child support (see, Fuerst v Fuerst, 131 A.D.2d 426). In view of the evidence establishing the mother's persistent interference with the father's visitation rights, the court properly exercised its discretion in canceling the arrears in child support and in suspending the father's prospective support obligation, correctly applying the law as it existed at that time (see, Fuerst v Fuerst, 131 A.D.2d 426, supra; see also, Matter of Alexander v Alexander, 129 A.D.2d 882, 884). Kunzeman, J.P., Eiber, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.