| Matter of Kirchain v Smith |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04468 [84 AD3d 1237] |
| May 24, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Tracey L. Kirchain, Appellant, v KennethM. Smith, Respondent. |
—[*1] Kenneth M. Smith, White Plains, N.Y., respondent pro se.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals froman order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), entered April 16, 2010, whichdenied her objections to an order of the same court (Cabanillas-Thompson, S.M.), dated January5, 2010, which, after a hearing, fixed the father's arrears for unreimbursed medical expenses inthe sum of only $1,129.63.
Ordered that the order entered April 16, 2010, is affirmed, with costs.
In reviewing a determination of the Family Court, deference should be given to thecredibility determinations of the Support Magistrate, who was in the best position to evaluate thecredibility of the witnesses (see Matter of Kahl-Lapine v Lapine, 35 AD3d 611, 612[2006]; Matter of Musarra v Musarra, 28 AD3d 668, 669 [2006]; Matter of Mahoneyv Goggins, 24 AD3d 668, 669 [2005]; Matter of Penninipede v Penninipede, 6 AD3d445, 447 [2004]). The record supports the Support Magistrate's finding that the father wasresponsible for the sum of $1,129.63 in unreimbursed medical expenses for the parties' child(see Matter of Kahl-Lapine v Lapine, 35 AD3d at 612; Matter of Penninipede vPenninipede, 6 AD3d at 447).
The mother met her initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence of the father'snonpayment of his pro rata share of certain unreimbursed medical expenses (see Matter ofPowers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 69 [1995]; Matter of Paccione v Paccione, 57 AD3d900, 902-903 [2008]). However, the father offered evidence sufficient to rebut her showing. Thefather's sworn testimony and documentary evidence established that he had paid the mother for aportion of the medical expenses for which she sought reimbursement. The record does notsupport the mother's contention that the Support Magistrate made a mathematical error.Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother's objections to the SupportMagistrate's order (see Matter of Mahoney v Goggins, 24 AD3d at 669). Mastro, J.P.,Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.