IN RE: Svitlana Volodymyrivna TSAROVA (2009)

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act articles 4 and 5B, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated October 2, 2007, which denied his objections to an order of support of the same court (Weir-Reeves, S.M.), dated July 30, 2007, in effect, finding paternity and directing him to pay child support in the amount of $1,650 per month, and $23,100 in child support arrears.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 The Family Court correctly found that at a hearing before the Support Magistrate, the appellant withdrew his application contesting paternity of the subject child.   There is no evidence in the record that the withdrawal of the application was in any way coerced by the Support Magistrate.   Accordingly, the appellant's arguments on the issue are not properly before this Court (see Matter of Michael F. v. Cerise S., 224 A.D.2d 692, 692, 639 N.Y.S.2d 65).

 The record supports the Support Magistrate's assessment of the appellant's credibility.  “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” (Matter of Musarra v. Musarra, 28 A.D.3d 668, 669, 814 N.Y.S.2d 657;  see Matter of Fragola v. Alfaro, 45 A.D.3d 684, 685, 845 N.Y.S.2d 437;  Matter of Accettulli v. Accettulli, 38 A.D.3d 766, 767, 834 N.Y.S.2d 533;  Matter of Luther v. Luther, 35 A.D.3d 473, 473, 825 N.Y.S.2d 718).   Where, as here, there is insufficient evidence to determine gross income, the Child Support Standards Act provides that “the court shall order child support based upon the needs or standard of living of the child, whichever is greater” (Family Ct. Act § 413[1][k];  see Orlando v. Orlando, 222 A.D.2d 906, 908, 635 N.Y.S.2d 752).   Therefore, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's determination based upon the needs of the child (see Family Ct. Act § 413[1] [k];  Matter of Denham v. Kaplan, 16 A.D.3d 685, 793 N.Y.S.2d 58;  Matter of Kondratyeva v. Yapi, 13 A.D.3d 376, 788 N.Y.S.2d 394;  Matter of Grossman v. Grossman, 248 A.D.2d 536, 670 N.Y.S.2d 206).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.