Opinion
6096
03-27-2018
In re MICHAEL K., Petitioner–Appellant, v. PAMELA D.W., Respondent–Respondent.
Friedman & Friedman, Garden City (Andrea B. Friedman of counsel), for appellant. Jill M. Zuccardy, New York, for respondent.
Friedman & Friedman, Garden City (Andrea B. Friedman of counsel), for appellant.
Jill M. Zuccardy, New York, for respondent.
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Webber, Oing, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Adetokunbo Fasanya, J.), entered on or about March 21, 2017, denying petitioner father's objections to an order, same court (Karen D. Kolomechuk, Support Magistrate) entered on or about January 6, 2017, which, inter alia, dismissed his petition for a downward modification of child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's dismissal of his petition (see Matter of Michelle F.F. v. Edward J.F., 50 A.D.3d 348, 349, 855 N.Y.S.2d 446 [1st Dept. 2008], appeal denied 11 N.Y.3d 708, 868 N.Y.S.2d 600, 897 N.E.2d 1084 [2008] ). Contrary to the father's argument, the Support Magistrate considered the testimony and documentary evidence and made appropriate findings, and such findings are entitled to deference (see Matter of Moore v. Blank, 8 A.D.3d 1090, 1091, 778 N.Y.S.2d 370 [1st Dept. 2004], lv denied 3 N.Y.3d 606, 785 N.Y.S.2d 22, 818 N.E.2d 664 [2004] ). Among other things, the Magistrate found that the income reported on the father's tax returns did not present a complete picture of his finances (see Michelle F.F., 50 A.D.3d at 349, 855 N.Y.S.2d 446 ; see e.g. Peri v. Peri, 2 A.D.3d 425, 426, 767 N.Y.S.2d 846 [2d Dept. 2003] ). Additionally, the father failed to demonstrate that he diligently sought to obtain employment commensurate with his earning capacity (see Michelle F.F. at 349, 855 N.Y.S.2d 446 ; Matter of Virginia S. v. Thomas S., 58 A.D.3d 441, 442–443, 870 N.Y.S.2d 322 [1st Dept. 2009] ; see also Cristina M. v. Kevin S.M., 91 A.D.3d 437, 438, 936 N.Y.S.2d 48 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 805, 2012 WL 2094324 [2012] ). Thus, the Support Magistrate providently concluded that the father failed to show a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a downward modification (id. ).
We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.