| Matter of Tsarova v Tsarov |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01229 [59 AD3d 632] |
| February 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Svitlana Volodymyrivna Tsarova,Respondent, v Mikhailo Viktorovych Tsarov, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act articles 4 and 5B, the fatherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated October 2,2007, which denied his objections to an order of support of the same court (Weir-Reeves, S.M.),dated July 30, 2007, in effect, finding paternity and directing him to pay child support in theamount of $1,650 per month, and $23,100 in child support arrears.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Family Court correctly found that at a hearing before the Support Magistrate, theappellant withdrew his application contesting paternity of the subject child. There is no evidencein the record that the withdrawal of the application was in any way coerced by the SupportMagistrate. Accordingly, the appellant's arguments on the issue are not properly before thisCourt (see Matter of Michael F. v Cerise S., 224 AD2d 692, 692 [1996]).
The record supports the Support Magistrate's assessment of the appellant's credibility. "Greatdeference should be given to the determination of the Support Magistrate, who is in the bestposition to assess the credibility of the witnesses" (Matter of Musarra v Musarra, 28 AD3d 668, 669 [2006]; see Matter [*2]of Fragola v Alfaro, 45 AD3d 684, 685 [2007]; Matter of Accettulli v Accettulli, 38AD3d 766, 767 [2007]; Matter ofLuther v Luther, 35 AD3d 473 [2006]). Where, as here, there is insufficient evidence todetermine gross income, the Child Support Standards Act provides that "the court shall orderchild support based upon the needs or standard of living of the child, whichever is greater"(Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [k]; see Orlando v Orlando, 222 AD2d 906, 908 [1995]).Therefore, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the Support Magistrate'sdetermination based upon the needs of the child (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [k];Matter of Denham v Kaplan, 16AD3d 685 [2005]; Matter ofKondratyeva v Yapi, 13 AD3d 376 [2004]; Matter of Grossman v Grossman,248 AD2d 536 [1998]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Dillon, Belen andChambers, JJ., concur.