Opinion
2002-06068, 2002-06069
Submitted October 14, 2003.
November 17, 2003.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Borofsky, H.E.), dated March 28, 2001, as, after a hearing, directed him to pay the sum of $608 per week in child support and the sum of $51,072 in arrears, and (2) from an order of the same court (Friedman, J.), dated May 20, 2002, which denied his objections to the order dated March 28, 2001.
Albert Talero, Forest Hills, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Leitner Getz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jerome M. Leitner of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, SONDRA MILLER, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated March 28, 2001, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated May 20, 2002; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated May 20, 2002, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the mother.
The Family Court properly sustained the Hearing Examiner's determination directing the father to pay child support in the sum of $608 per week. Contrary to the father's contentions, the Hearing Examiner properly found that his income was greater than that indicated in his most recent income tax return ( see Matter of Graves v. Smith, 284 A.D.2d 332, 333; Matter of Mobley-Jennings v. Dare, 226 A.D.2d 730; see also Bittner v. Bittner, 296 A.D.2d 516; Matter of Gallager v. Flaherty, 220 A.D.2d 867). A court is not required to rely upon a party's own account of his or her finances, and may impute income based upon that party's past income or demonstrated earning potential ( see Cohen v. Cohen, 294 A.D.2d 184; Matter of Graves v. Smith, supra). Here, the Hearing Examiner properly imputed income to the father based on his past and present earning potential ( see Matter of Kellogg v. Kellogg, 300 A.D.2d 996; Matter of Monroe County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Mercado, 241 A.D.2d 948).
The father's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, S. MILLER and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.