Opinion
No. 5049.
January 15, 2009.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about April 28, 2008, which denied respondent Marie-Amina T.'s objection to a Magistrate's final order of support that obligated her to pay continuing support for her two children in the amount of $194 per week, in addition to $15,630.86 in retroactive support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Marie-Amina T., appellant pro se.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Sharyn Rootenberg of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
Respondent failed to rebut the presumption that the standard of support as calculated under Family Court Act § 413 (1) (c) was reasonable and appropriate ( see Matter of Andre v Warren, 192 AD2d 491). In a hearing where credibility was a crucial consideration, respondent was not forthright about — and presented insufficient evidence regarding — the amount of her gross income, thus authorizing the Magistrate to base the support obligation on the children's needs, pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (k) ( see Merchant v Hicks, 15 AD3d 266).
Respondent's unsubstantiated claim that her current employment income is insufficient to enable her to support herself and also meet her child-support obligation is unavailing. The record establishes that based on her education and background, respondent's earning potential and capacity are more than adequate ( see Family Ct Act § 413 [b] [5] [v]; Matter of Richards v Bailey, 296 AD2d 412; Polite v Polite, 127 AD2d 465, 467).