| Matter of Rube v Tornheim |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08625 [67 AD3d 916] |
| November 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Amy Rube, Respondent, v YehudaTornheim, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Amy Rube, Brooklyn, N.Y., respondent pro se.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Kings County (Sacco, J.), dated February 17, 2009, which deniedhis objections to five orders of the same court (Fasone, S.M.), four dated March 20, 2008, andone dated June 20, 2008, which, after a hearing, inter alia, determined that he willfully violated aprior order of support, awarded the mother a money judgment for child support arrears in theprincipal sum of $35,464, and directed the entry of a judgment against him in the principal sumof $35,464.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Great deference should be given to the determination of the Support Magistrate, who is inthe best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses (see Matter of Fragola v Alfaro, 45 AD3d 684, 685 [2007]).Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly determined that he willfullyviolated a prior order of support. Proof that the father failed to pay child support as orderedconstituted prima facie evidence of the father's willful violation of the order of support andshifted the burden to him to come forward with competent, credible evidence of his inability topay (see Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 69-70 [1995]; Matter of Brennan v Burger, 63 AD3d922, 923 [2009]; Matter ofGreene-Tyus v Tyus, 61 AD3d 758 [2009]). The father failed to rebut the prima facieevidence of willfulness because he presented no evidence that he was unable to pay child support(see Matter of Musarra v Musarra,28 AD3d 668, 669 [2006]).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Hall,JJ., concur.