| Khaimova v Mosheyev |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09964 [57 AD3d 737] |
| December 16, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Lyubov Khaimova, Respondent, v Aleksandr Mosheyev,Appellant. |
—[*1] John A. Gemelli, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y. (David M. Gross of counsel), for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from somuch of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), entered July 10, 2007, asgranted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an award of pendente lite child support in thesum of $625 per month.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant husband represented to the Supreme Court that his annual income was $12,000.Based upon his testimony and an examination of his tax returns and sworn expenses from his statementof net worth, which indicated that he had monthly expenses as great as $6,000, the court concludedthat his testimony regarding his yearly income was disingenuous. The court imputed an annual income tothe defendant in the sum of $30,000, based upon his financial documentation and significant expenses inexcess of his purported income.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly imputed income to him indetermining his child support obligation is without merit. "In determining a parent's child supportobligation, [the Supreme] Court is not required to rely upon the party's own account of his or herfinances, and may impute income based on that party's past income or demonstrated earning potential"(Matter of Moran v Grillo, 44 AD3d859, 861 [2007]; see Matter of Strella vFerro, 42 AD3d 544, 546 [2007]; DeVries v DeVries, 35 AD3d 794, 795 [2006]).[*2]
In the instant case, the defendant's financial documentationindicated that his monthly income was only one sixth of his stated monthly expenses and no evidencewas submitted to show that these monthly expenses were not being paid in a timely manner. Thefactfinder's determination concerning the imputation of income to an obligor spouse is almost alwaysbased on the resolution of credibility, and therefore, is given great deference on appeal (see Matter of Strella v Ferro, 42 AD3d544 [2007]). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imputing incometo the defendant for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation, based upon his financialdocumentation (see Matter of Barnett vRuotolo, 49 AD3d 640 [2008]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in mandating the sale of the parties'marital cooperative is not properly before this Court on the instant appeal since the Supreme Courtdirected the sale in a prior order dated April 4, 2006, from which no appeal was taken. Rivera, J.P.,Angiolillo, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.