IN RE: Diane GENENDER (2008)

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Woods, J.), entered May 24, 2006, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Hochberg, S.M.), entered March 28, 2006, which, after a hearing, directed him, inter alia, to pay child support in the sum of $327 per week.   By decision and order of this Court dated May 22, 2007, the appeal was held in abeyance and the matter was remitted to the Family Court, Orange County (Hochberg, S.M.), to report on the specific sources of income imputed, the actual dollar amount assigned to each category, and the resultant calculations pursuant to Family Court Act § 413(1)(c) (see Matter of Genender v. Genender, 40 A.D.3d 994, 836 N.Y.S.2d 291).   The Family Court, Orange County, has filed its report.   Presiding Justice Prudenti has been substituted for former Justice Krausman, and Justice Chambers has been substituted for former Justice Crane (see 22 NYCRR 670.1[c] ).

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

 “A Support Magistrate is afforded considerable discretion in determining whether to impute income to a parent ․ and that determination may properly be based upon a parent's prior employment experience” (Matter of Bibicoff v. Orfanakis, 48 A.D.3d 680, 681, 852 N.Y.S.2d 324;  Matter of Hurd v. Hurd, 303 A.D.2d 928, 757 N.Y.S.2d 170), “money, goods, or services provided by relatives and friends” (Family Ct. Act § 413[1][b][5][iv][D];  see Ivani v. Ivani, 303 A.D.2d 639, 757 N.Y.S.2d 89;  Matter of Ladd v. Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., 199 A.D.2d 393, 394, 605 N.Y.S.2d 318), or the income such parent is capable of earning “by honest efforts, given his [or her] education and opportunities” (Kay v. Kay, 37 N.Y.2d 632, 637, 376 N.Y.S.2d 443, 339 N.E.2d 143;  Matter of Thompson v. Perez, 42 A.D.3d 503, 504, 838 N.Y.S.2d 789).

 Upon the father's failure to submit timely compulsory financial disclosure, the Support Magistrate, under the circumstances presented, properly determined the amount of support based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, which included, inter alia, evidence of the children's needs, as well as evidence of the father's earning potential (see Family Ct. Act § 413[1] [k];  § 424-a[b];  Matter of Thompson v. Perez, 42 A.D.3d at 504, 838 N.Y.S.2d 789;  Matter of Strella v. Ferro, 42 A.D.3d 544, 841 N.Y.S.2d 118;  Matter of Kondratyeva v. Yapi, 13 A.D.3d 376, 377, 788 N.Y.S.2d 394).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.