| Matter of Rzemieniewska-Bugnacki v Bugnacki |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04878 [51 AD3d 1029] |
| May 27, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Joanna Rzemieniewska-Bugnacki,Respondent, v Dariusz Bugnacki, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated July 26, 2007, which denied hisobjections to an order of the same court (Blaustein, S.M.) dated February 2, 2007, which, after ahearing, fixed his arrears for child support in the sum of $58,448.
Ordered that the order dated July 26, 2007 is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties are the parents of a 15-year-old daughter. The father is obligated to support thedaughter pursuant to a 1996 judgment of divorce. The mother commenced an enforcementproceeding, seeking almost 10 years of arrears in child support. The father offered proof ofpartial payments evidenced by a few checks from 2005 and 2006, and by some signed receiptsfrom the period 2001 through 2004. The Support Magistrate fully credited the father for all thosepayments. With those credits, the Support Magistrate determined that the father was in arrears inchild support in the amount of $58,448.
The receipts offered by the father contain additional notations that the father asserted wasevidence that he was not in arrears in child support as of the respective dates of the receipts. Themother testified that the receipts were presented for signature as written, that she signed thereceipts in order to receive the sporadic payment evidenced by the receipts, and that the notationsmerely represented that the father paid the current support in the amount specified.
Contrary to the father's assertion in his objections to the Support Magistrate's determination,the Support Magistrate made findings of fact which set forth how she calculated the arrears, and[*2]from which it is clear that she credited the mother'stestimony. The hearing court has broad discretion in its evaluation of testimony and thedetermination of credibility (see Matter of Strella v Ferro, 42 AD3d 544 [2007];Matter of Kahl-Lapine v Lapine, 35 AD3d 611 [2006]).
In determining the objections, only documentation that was presented at the hearing can beconsidered (see Matter of Williams v Williams, 37 AD3d 843 [2007]). Thedocumentation offered by the father at the hearing did not establish an express or implied waiverof child support (see Matter of Dox v Tynon, 90 NY2d 166, 175-176 [1997]; Matterof O'Connor v Curcio, 281 AD2d 100 [2001]; Parmigiani v Parmigiani, 250 AD2d744 [1998]). Contrary to the father's contention, the documentation he offered did not establishthat he was current in his support obligation, with no arrears, as of the dates of the variousreceipts. Rivera, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.