Opinion
September 14, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Nason, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court correctly upheld the Hearing Examiner's order, in which she applied the guidelines set forth in the Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter CSSA) to calculate the child support award (see, Family Ct Act § 413). Although the petition was filed prior to the effective date of the CSSA (L 1989, ch 567), the hearing was held and the order appealed from was made after its effective date. In light of the remedial nature of the legislation and the important public policy considerations involved, the court was empowered to apply the guidelines (see, Matter of Borgio v Borgio, 186 A.D.2d 131 [decided herewith]; Matter of Howard v Howard, 186 A.D.2d 132 [decided herewith]; Butler v Butler, 171 A.D.2d 985; Gelb v Brown, 163 A.D.2d 189).
We also reject the father's argument that in light of his allegedly extenuating financial circumstances, the application of the CSSA guidelines resulted in an inappropriate or unjust support result. The Hearing Examiner was not bound by the amount of support requested in the petition (see, Winters v Winters, 154 A.D.2d 884), and there arose a rebuttable presumption that application of the CSSA guidelines yielded a correct amount of child support (see, Matter of Steuben County Dept. of Social Servs. v James, 171 A.D.2d 1023; 42 U.S.C. § 667 [b] [2]). Although the appellant contends that the Hearing Examiner failed to properly consider his claims of financial distress, we accord deference to the Hearing Examiner's assessment of the parties' credibility and the evidence presented (see, Matter of Alamo v Alamo, 168 A.D.2d 493). Moreover, under the circumstances, we conclude that the award was not excessive.
We have examined the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ., concur.