Opinion
10404
12-10-2019
In re E.D., Petitioner–Appellant, v. T.D., Respondent–Respondent.
Blank Rome LLP, New York (Brett S. Ward of counsel), for appellant. Marzano Lawyers PLLC, New York (Naved Amed of counsel), for respondent.
Blank Rome LLP, New York (Brett S. Ward of counsel), for appellant.
Marzano Lawyers PLLC, New York (Naved Amed of counsel), for respondent.
Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Gische, Webber, Kern, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Jonathan H. Shim, J.), entered on or about March 28, 2019, which denied petitioner mother's objection to an order, same court (Support Magistrate Lewis A. Borofsky), entered on or about April 4, 2018, which, after a trial, dismissed her petition for downward modification of child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
We accord great deference to the findings of the Support Magistrate, who is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence presented ( Matter of Minerva R. v. Jorge L.A. , 59 A.D.3d 243, 875 N.Y.S.2d 446 [1st Dept. 2009] ).
The Family Court properly found that the mother failed to produce evidence substantiating her testimony about the extent to which the parties' son's medical care impacted upon her ability to seek employment.
A court is not required, in evaluating grounds for modification, to accept a parent's testimony that he or she is prevented from working (see e.g. Matter of Angela B. v. Gustavo D. , 150 A.D.3d 471, 51 N.Y.S.3d 874 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Elyorah E. v. Ian E. , 127 A.D.3d 449, 4 N.Y.S.3d 522 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Matter of Virginia S. v. Thomas S. , 58 A.D.3d 441, 870 N.Y.S.2d 322 [1st Dept. 2009] ; Matter of Maria T. v. Kwame A. , 35 A.D.3d 239, 826 N.Y.S.2d 42 [1st Dept. 2006] ).
We have considered the mother's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.