| Matter of Ennis v Pina |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08104 [78 AD3d 830] |
| November 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Trudy Ennis, Respondent, v Ralph Pina,Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from anorder of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated December 2, 2009, whichdenied his objections to an order of the same court (Orlando, S.M.), dated October 1, 2009,which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed him to pay child support in the sum of $1,192.16 permonth.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"Great deference should be given to the determination of the Support Magistrate, who is inthe best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses" (Matter of Tsarova v Tsarov, 59 AD3d 632, 633 [2009]; see Matter of Fragola v Alfaro, 45AD3d 684, 685 [2007]; Matter ofMusarra v Musarra, 28 AD3d 668, 669 [2006]). Here, the record supports the SupportMagistrate's finding that the father's testimony and the documentation proffered regarding hisincome were not credible. Since the Support Magistrate was presented with insufficient evidenceto determine the father's gross income, it was proper to base the child support award on the needsof the children (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [k]; Matter of Tsarova vTsarov, 59 AD3d at 633; Matter ofChildress v Samuel, 27 AD3d 295 [2006]; Orlando v Orlando, 222 AD2d 906,908 [1995]).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections. Prudenti, P.J.,Covello, Florio and Belen, JJ., concur.