SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1408 

CAF 12-00155 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF ASHLEA KASPROWICZ, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KRISTOPHER OSGOOD, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

---------------------------------------- 

IN THE MATTER OF KRISTOPHER OSGOOD, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V

 

ASHLEA KASPROWICZ, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

KATHLEEN P. REARDON, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT AND

PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

CAROLYN KELLOGG JONAS, WELLSVILLE, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT AND

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Allegany County

(Terrence M. Parker, J.), dated December 5, 2011 in a proceeding

pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied respondentpetitioner’s written objections to an order issued by the Support

Magistrate. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent-petitioner father appeals from an order

confirming the finding of the Support Magistrate that he willfully

violated an order of child support. We affirm (see Matter of

Christine L.M. v Wlodek K., 45 AD3d 1452, 1452; Matter of Hunt v Hunt,

30 AD3d 1065, 1065). There is a presumption that a parent has

sufficient means to support his or her minor children (see Family Ct

Act § 437; Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 68-69; Hunt, 30 AD3d

at 1065), and the evidence that the father failed to pay support as

ordered constitutes “prima facie evidence of a willful violation” (§

454 [3] [a]). The burden then shifted to the father to present “some

competent, credible evidence of his inability to make the required

payments” (Powers, 86 NY2d at 70; see Hunt, 30 AD3d at 1065). 

The Support Magistrate, who was in the best position to evaluate the

credibility of the witnesses (see Matter of Natali v Natali, 30 AD3d

1010, 1011-1012), determined that the father was not credible and did
-2- 1408 

CAF 12-00155 

not make reasonable efforts to obtain employment (see Christine L.M.,

45 AD3d at 1452-1453; Hunt, 30 AD3d at 1065), and “[g]reat deference

should be given to the determination of the Support Magistrate”

(Matter of Yamonaco v Fey, 91 AD3d 1322, 1323, lv denied 19 NY3d 803;

see Matter of Manocchio v Manocchio, 16 AD3d 1126, 1128). We note in

any event that Family Court properly granted the relief sought in the

violation petition based on the father’s failure to submit a financial

disclosure statement (see § 424-a [b]). The father’s contention that

the court erred in failing to cap his unpaid child support arrears at

$500 pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (g) “is raised for the

first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review” (Matter

of Cattaraugus County Dept. of Social Servs. v Stark, 75 AD3d 1098,

1098; see Creighton v Creighton, 222 AD2d 740, 743). 

We likewise reject the contention of the father that the court

erred in confirming the Support Magistrate’s denial of his petition

for a downward modification of his support obligation (see Matter of

Duerr v Cuenin, 280 AD2d 903, 904). The father failed to meet his

burden of “establishing that he diligently sought re-employment

commensurate with his former employment” (Matter of Leonardo v

Leonardo, 94 AD3d 1452, 1453, lv denied 19 NY3d 807; cf. Matter of

Glinski v Glinski, 199 AD2d 994, 994-995). Furthermore, the Support

Magistrate did not err in denying the father’s petition without

receiving financial disclosure statements (cf. Matter of Malcolm v

Trupiano, 94 AD3d 1380, 1381; Matter of Harvey v Benedict, 83 AD3d

1402, 1402-1403) because the burden was on the father to demonstrate a

substantial change in circumstances warranting a downward modification

(see Leonardo, 94 AD3d at 1453; Duerr, 280 AD2d at 904). We conclude

that any alleged error by the Support Magistrate in relying on

documents not in evidence in making its determination as to the

father’s credibility “is harmless because that [credibility]

determination is supported by admissible evidence” (Matter of

Nathaniel W., 24 AD3d 1240, 1241, lv denied 6 NY3d 711).

Entered: December 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court