IN RE: COLUMBIA COUNTY SUPPORT COLLECTION UNIT (2006)

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Columbia County (Czajka, J.), entered July 7, 2004, which, inter alia, granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 4, to find respondent in willful violation of a prior support order.

 Family Court correctly determined that respondent willfully violated a prior order of child support.   The testimony of a child support investigator employed by petitioner established that respondent owed over $10,000 in child support arrears.   This testimony, which was uncontroverted, constituted prima facie evidence of a willful violation (see Family Ct. Act § 454[3][a];  Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 69, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154 [1995] ).   The burden then shifted to respondent to rebut this prima facie showing by offering some competent, credible evidence of her inability to make the required payments (see Matter of Powers v. Powers, supra;  see also Family Ct. Act § 455[5] ).   This she failed to do.

 While respondent claims that her various medical ailments preclude her from obtaining any employment whatsoever, she failed to present credible medical evidence to substantiate this claim (see e.g. Matter of Fogg v. Stoll, 26 A.D.3d 810, 809 N.Y.S.2d 368 [2006];  Matter of Castillo v. Castillo, 23 A.D.3d 653, 654, 804 N.Y.S.2d 421 [2005];  Matter of Hayes v. Hayes, 294 A.D.2d 681, 682, 741 N.Y.S.2d 345 [2002];  Matter of Feliciano v. Nielsen, 282 A.D.2d 783, 784, 722 N.Y.S.2d 825 [2001];  Matter of Crystal v. Corwin, 274 A.D.2d 683, 684-685, 710 N.Y.S.2d 207 [2000];  Matter of Nickerson v. Bellinger, 258 A.D.2d 688, 685 N.Y.S.2d 320 [1999];  compare Matter of Bukovinsky v. Bukovinsky, 299 A.D.2d 786, 751 N.Y.S.2d 92 [2002], lv. dismissed 100 N.Y.2d 534, 762 N.Y.S.2d 875, 793 N.E.2d 412 [2003] ).   Respondent also argues that the Support Magistrate erred in not admitting her medical records into evidence at the hearing.   In the absence of the required certification or authentication (see CPLR 4518[c] ), and in the absence of independent evidence establishing the foundational requirements for admissibility (see CPLR 4518[a] ), we are unable to conclude that this ruling was in error (see generally Matter of Bronstein-Becher v. Becher, 25 A.D.3d 796, 809 N.Y.S.2d 140 [2006] ).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

CARPINELLO, J.

CREW III, J.P., PETERS, LAHTINEN and KANE, JJ., concur.