Opinion
2019–02704 Docket No. F–592–18
03-04-2020
In the Matter of Altagrace Paul PIERRE, Respondent, v. Franklyn Benjamin HERNANDEZ, Appellant.
Pamela D. Hayes, New York, NY, for appellant.
Pamela D. Hayes, New York, NY, for appellant.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the order dated February 14, 2019, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties have one child together. In January 2018, the mother filed a petition seeking child support. After a hearing, the Support Magistrate found that the father failed to substantiate his income and imputed income to him. In an order dated November 9, 2018, the Support Magistrate, inter alia, in effect, granted the mother's petition and directed the father to pay child support in the sum of $738 per month. The father filed objections to the Support Magistrate's order. In an order dated February 14, 2019, the Family Court denied the father's objections. The father appeals.
"The support magistrate is not bound by a party's version of his or her finances or financial documentation" ( Matter of Barmoha v. Eisayev , 146 A.D.3d 946, 946, 45 N.Y.S.3d 566 ; see Matter of McVea v. McVea , 176 A.D.3d 822, 822, 107 N.Y.S.3d 882 ), and "[g]reat deference should be given to the credibility determination of the Support Magistrate, who is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses" ( Matter of Toumazatos v. Toumazatos , 125 A.D.3d 870, 870–871, 1 N.Y.S.3d 838 ; see Matter of Wei–Fisher v. Michael , 155 A.D.3d 883, 884, 63 N.Y.S.3d 706 ). Here, the record supports the Support Magistrate's determination to impute income to the father for the purpose of making a child support award. In addition, we agree with the Family Court's determination to decline to consider certain assertions made by the father in support of his objections, allegedly establishing that his monthly household expenses do not exceed the household's total monthly income, since they were not supported by any evidence offered at the hearing before the Support Magistrate (see Matter of Brandon v. Lopez , 174 A.D.3d 706, 707, 102 N.Y.S.3d 485 ; Matter of Loveless v. Goldbloom , 141 A.D.3d 662, 663, 35 N.Y.S.3d 456 ; Matter of Korosh v. Korosh , 99 A.D.3d 909, 910, 953 N.Y.S.2d 72 ; Matter of Carene S. v. Kendall S. , 96 A.D.3d 767, 768, 945 N.Y.S.2d 570 ).
The father's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court, as they were not raised in his objections to the Support Magistrate's order (see Matter of Heintzman v. Heintzman , 157 A.D.3d 682, 690, 68 N.Y.S.3d 508 ; Matter of Hall v. Pancho , 149 A.D.3d 735, 738–739, 51 N.Y.S.3d 149 ; Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang , 89 A.D.3d 946, 947, 933 N.Y.S.2d 80 ). Accordingly, we agree with the Family Court's denial of the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's order.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RIVERA, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.