Opinion
16535-, 16535A Index No. 300797/16 Case No. 2021–02542
10-25-2022
Velin MEZINEV, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Bermet TASHYBEKOVA, Defendant–Respondent.
Velin Mezinev, appellant pro se. Bermet Tashybekova, respondent pro se.
Velin Mezinev, appellant pro se.
Bermet Tashybekova, respondent pro se.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, Scarpulla, Mendez, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court (Kelly O'Neill Levy, J.), dated February 11, 2021, as amended by order, same court and Justice, entered May 20, 2021, which confirmed the April 20, 2020 report of the Special Referee, and denied plaintiff's motions to vacate child support arrears, reduce child support to reflect poverty level income, remove civil disabilities imposed for nonpayment of child support, stay and modify execution of a court-ordered judgment against him in the amount of $100,000, and for poor person relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff contends that the Special Referee -in making her recommendation for equitable distribution, child support, and payment of counsel fees-ignored evidence presented during the hearing regarding his financial situation and defendant's lack of credibility. However, plaintiff fails to include the minutes from the hearing in the record on appeal to allow a full assessment of these arguments. Accordingly, since plaintiff submitted an "incomplete and insufficient record," he must "abide the consequences" ( Provencal–Dayle v. Dayle, 50 A.D.3d 502, 503, 858 N.Y.S.2d 53 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 716, 862 N.Y.S.2d 337, 892 N.E.2d 403 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]). In any event, nothing in the limited record before us conclusively demonstrates that the Referee erred in making her determinations. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the Referee properly considered his prestigious credentials, his past work experience and earning history which supported the Referee's determination to impute income of $120,000 for the purpose of calculating child support (see Marino v. Marino, 183 A.D.3d 813, 817–818, 123 N.Y.S.3d 638 [2d Dept. 2020] ).
In view of plaintiff's imputed income, the court properly denied his subsequent motions to vacate child support arrears, reduce child support to reflect poverty level income, remove civil disabilities imposed for nonpayment of child support, stay and modify execution of the judgment against him, and for poor person relief.