IN RE: Raphael F. FRAGOLA (2007)

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Marks, J.), dated December 29, 2006, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Dwyer, S.M.), dated September 29, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

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

 “A downward modification of a parent's child support obligation may be granted where the parent demonstrates a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances” (Matter of Muselevichus v. Muselevichus, 40 A.D.3d 997, 998, 836 N.Y.S.2d 661;  see Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132, 138, 451 N.Y.S.2d 68, 436 N.E.2d 518;  Matter of Fowler v. Rivera, 40 A.D.3d 1093, 1094, 834 N.Y.S.2d 873;  Matter of Yepes v. Fichera, 230 A.D.2d 803, 804, 646 N.Y.S.2d 533).  “A parent's loss of employment may constitute such a change in circumstances, justifying a downward modification, where the termination occurred through no fault of the parent and the parent has diligently sought re-employment” (Matter of Muselevichus v. Muselevichus, 40 A.D.3d at 998, 836 N.Y.S.2d 661;  see Matter of Fowler v. Rivera, 40 A.D.3d at 1094, 834 N.Y.S.2d 873;  Matter of Davis v. Davis, 13 A.D.3d 623, 624, 787 N.Y.S.2d 113;  Matter of Yepes v. Fichera, 230 A.D.2d at 804, 646 N.Y.S.2d 533;  Matter of Meyer v. Meyer, 205 A.D.2d 784, 784, 614 N.Y.S.2d 42).  “The proper amount of support to be paid, however, is determined not by the parent's current economic situation, but by the parent's assets and earning capacity” (Matter of Muselevichus v. Muselevichus, 40 A.D.3d at 998-999, 836 N.Y.S.2d 661;  see Hickland v. Hickland, 39 N.Y.2d 1, 5-6, 382 N.Y.S.2d 475, 346 N.E.2d 243, cert. denied 429 U.S. 941, 97 S.Ct. 357, 50 L.Ed.2d 310;  Beard v. Beard, 300 A.D.2d 268, 269, 751 N.Y.S.2d 304;  Matter of Yepes v. Fichera, 230 A.D.2d at 804, 646 N.Y.S.2d 533).   “Therefore, a parent seeking a downward modification based on a loss of employment must demonstrate that he or she has made ‘a good-faith effort to obtain employment commensurate with his or her qualifications and experience’ ” (Matter of Muselevichus v. Muselevichus, 40 A.D.3d at 999, 836 N.Y.S.2d 661, quoting Beard v. Beard, 300 A.D.2d at 269, 751 N.Y.S.2d 304;  see Matter of Yepes v. Fichera, 230 A.D.2d at 804, 646 N.Y.S.2d 533).  “ ‘Great deference should be given to the determination of the Support Magistrate, who is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence proffered’ ” (Matter of Accettulli v. Accettulli, 38 A.D.3d 766, 767, 834 N.Y.S.2d 533, quoting Matter of Musarra v. Musarra, 28 A.D.3d 668, 669, 814 N.Y.S.2d 657;  see Matter of Luther v. Luther, 35 A.D.3d 473, 473, 825 N.Y.S.2d 718;  Matter of Galati v. Galati, 27 A.D.3d 737, 738, 815 N.Y.S.2d 600).

 The Family Court's denial of the father's petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation is supported by the record.   The court properly considered the father's assets, including his real estate holdings and his bank account, as well as his earning capacity, and determined that, under the circumstances, the father was not entitled to a downward modification (see generally Hickland v. Hickland, 39 N.Y.2d at 5-6, 382 N.Y.S.2d 475, 346 N.E.2d 243, cert. denied 429 U.S. 941, 97 S.Ct. 357, 50 L.Ed.2d 310;  Matter of Muselevichus v. Muselevichus, 40 A.D.3d at 998-999, 836 N.Y.S.2d 661;  Beard v. Beard, 300 A.D.2d at 269, 751 N.Y.S.2d 304;   Matter of Yepes v. Fichera, 230 A.D.2d at 804, 646 N.Y.S.2d 533).   Accordingly, under the particular circumstances presented here, the Family Court properly denied the father's petition for downward modification.

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.