IN RE: Cindy A. FERRARA (2008)

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Zimmerman, J.), dated March 19, 2007, which denied his objections to two orders of the same court (Kahlon, S.M.), both dated January 24, 2007, which, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for a money judgment for child support arrears, and denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation, respectively.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

 The Family Court correctly denied the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's determinations.   Proof of the father's failure to pay support constituted “prima facie evidence of a willful violation” (Family Ct. Act § 454[3][a] ), and shifted the burden to him to come forward with competent credible evidence of his inability to do so (see Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 69-70, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154;  Matter of Kainth v. Kainth, 36 A.D.3d 915, 829 N.Y.S.2d 580).   The father offered no acceptable medical proof of inability to pay and therefore failed to rebut the mother's prima facie case (see Matter of Bronstein-Becher v. Becher, 25 A.D.3d 796, 809 N.Y.S.2d 140;  Matter of Castillo v. Castillo, 23 A.D.3d 653, 804 N.Y.S.2d 421).

 Furthermore, the Family Court correctly determined that the father failed to meet his burden of demonstrating an unexpected and unreasonable change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of the prior child support order (see Matter of Boden v. Boden, 42 N.Y.2d 210, 213, 397 N.Y.S.2d 701, 366 N.E.2d 791;  Matter of Marrale v. Marrale, 44 A.D.3d 773, 843 N.Y.S.2d 407;  Matter of Prisco v. Buxbaum, 275 A.D.2d 461, 712 N.Y.S.2d 891;  Brevetti v. Brevetti, 182 A.D.2d 606, 581 N.Y.S.2d 859).

 As to the father's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, in the context of civil litigation, such a claim will not be entertained where, as here, extraordinary circumstances are absent (see Matter of Cichosz v. Cichosz, 12 A.D.3d 598, 599, 784 N.Y.S.2d 387;  Matter of Ketcham v. Crawford, 1 A.D.3d 359, 361, 767 N.Y.S.2d 47).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.