| Matter of Kennedy v Ventimiglia |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04393 [73 AD3d 1066] |
| May 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Maryanne Kennedy, Appellant, v JohnVentimiglia, Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals, aslimited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Greenberg,J.), dated July 21, 2009, as denied her objection to so much of an order of the same court (Cahn,S.M.), dated March 6, 2009, as, after a hearing, denied her petition, in effect, to modify a priororder of child support dated September 27, 2007, and granted the father's cross petition for adownward modification of his child support obligation.
Ordered that the order dated July 21, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, withoutcosts or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Support Magistrate did not improvidently exerciseher discretion in declining to impute additional income to the father. A Support Magistrate isafforded considerable discretion in determining whether to impute income to a parent (see Matter of Genender v Genender,51 AD3d 669, 670 [2008]; Matterof Bibicoff v Orfanakis, 48 AD3d 680, 681 [2008]; Matter of Thompson v Perez, 42 AD3d 503, 504 [2007];Matter of Hurd v Hurd, 303 AD2d 928, 928 [2003]). " 'Great deference should be givento the determination of the Support Magistrate, who is in the best position to assess thecredibility of the witnesses' " (Matter ofStrella v Ferro, 42 AD3d 544, 545 [2007], quoting Matter of Musarra v Musarra, 28 AD3d 668, 669 [2006]; see Matter of Cordero v Olivera, 40AD3d 852, 852-853 [2007]; Matterof Mahoney v Goggins, 24 AD3d 668, 669 [2005]). Here, the Support Magistrateproperly declined to impute additional income to the father (see Matter of Saren v Palma, 3 AD3d 572, 572 [2004]). Thefindings regarding the father's income were based on credibility determinations and aresupported by the record. Accordingly, they should not be disturbed (id.).
The mother's remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or withoutmerit. Covello, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.