Opinion
02-18-2015
In the Matter of Koralia TOUMAZATOS, respondent, v. Stelios TOUMAZATOS, appellant.
Fiscella & Sussman, LLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Amy R. Sussman of counsel), for appellant. Harvey Sorid, Uniondale, N.Y. (Michelle Dellatorre of counsel), for respondent.
Fiscella & Sussman, LLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Amy R. Sussman of counsel), for appellant.
Harvey Sorid, Uniondale, N.Y. (Michelle Dellatorre of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Robin Kent, J.), dated December 11, 2013. The order denied the father's objections to a prior order of that court (Patricia Bannon, S.M.), which, after a hearing, directed him to pay child support in the sum of $2,438.70 per month.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Family Court did not err in denying the father's objections to the order directing him to pay child support in the sum of $2,438.70 per month. Great 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 (see Matter of Martin v. Cooper, 96 A.D.3d 849, 947 N.Y.S.2d 526 ; Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang, 89 A.D.3d 946, 933 N.Y.S.2d 80 ; Matter of Ennis v. Pina, 78 A.D.3d 830, 910 N.Y.S.2d 366 ). Here, the record supports the Support Magistrate's finding that the father's testimony regarding his financial situation was not credible.
The father's financial disclosure affidavit, tax returns, and testimony at the hearing did not contain adequate information for the Support Magistrate to determine his income and assets. Therefore, the Support Magistrate did not err in basing the father's support obligation on the needs of the children pursuant to Family Court Act § 413(1)(k) (see Matter of Weiss v. Rosenthal, 122 A.D.3d 932, 998 N.Y.S.2d 391 ; Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang, 89 A.D.3d at 947, 933 N.Y.S.2d 80 ; Matter of Ennis v. Pina, 78 A.D.3d at 831, 910 N.Y.S.2d 366 ; Matter of Tsarova v. Tsarov, 59 A.D.3d 632, 875 N.Y.S.2d 84 ). The Support Magistrate properly determined the amount of support based on the evidence of the children's needs and expenses adduced at the hearing (see Hicks v. Hicks, 87 A.D.3d 1143, 929 N.Y.S.2d 875 ; see also Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang, 89 A.D.3d at 947, 933 N.Y.S.2d 80 ).
Furthermore, the Support Magistrate's questioning of the father was proper. A support magistrate may assume an active role in the examination of witnesses where proper or necessary to facilitate or expedite the orderly progress of the hearing (see Matter of Cadle v. Hill, 23 A.D.3d 652, 804 N.Y.S.2d 429 ; see also McGuire v. McGuire, 93 A.D.3d 701, 939 N.Y.S.2d 572 ). Here, the Support Magistrate asked questions only in order to clarify the father's testimony regarding his financial situation. The Support Magistrate did not unduly interfere with the presentation of the father's case, or indicate any partiality or bias which would warrant reversal (see Matter of Cadle v. Hill, 23 A.D.3d at 653, 804 N.Y.S.2d 429 ).
SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, SGROI and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.