IN RE: Joan BARNETT (2008)

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), dated February 9, 2007, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Grier, S.M.), dated November 6, 2006, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed him to pay child support in the sum of $2,100 per month.

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

 A Support Magistrate is permitted to impute income in calculating a support obligation where he or she finds that a party's account of their finances is not credible or suspect (see DeVries v. DeVries, 35 A.D.3d 794, 828 N.Y.S.2d 142;  Matter of Westenberger v. Westenberger, 23 A.D.3d 571, 806 N.Y.S.2d 665;  Peri v. Peri, 2 A.D.3d 425, 767 N.Y.S.2d 846;  Lilikakis v. Lilikakis, 308 A.D.2d 435, 764 N.Y.S.2d 206).  “However, in exercising the discretion to impute income to a party, a Support Magistrate is required to provide a clear record of the source from which the income is imputed and the reasons for such imputation” (Matter of Kristy Helen T. v. Richard F.G., 17 A.D.3d 684, 685, 794 N.Y.S.2d 92).

 Here, the father did not testify and chose to rely on the financial documentation he had submitted, which contained considerable discrepancies.   The father's financial documentation indicated that his monthly income was only approximately one-third of his stated monthly expenses, and no evidence was submitted to show that these monthly expenses were not being paid in a timely manner.   Accordingly, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imputing income based upon the father's self-reported financial affidavit for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation (see Matter of Strella v. Ferro, 42 A.D.3d 544, 841 N.Y.S.2d 118;  Pulver v. Pulver, 40 A.D.3d 1315, 837 N.Y.S.2d 369;  Askew v. Askew, 268 A.D.2d 635, 700 N.Y.S.2d 594).