Powell v. LewisPowell v. Lewis
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The
In any event, the Hearing Examiner was justified in determining that the father‘s account of his income and finances was not believable and, consequently, in basing the father‘s support obligation on what the Hearing Examiner believed to be the father‘s true income (see Friedman v Friedman, 309 AD2d 830 [2003]; Maggi v Maggi, 303 AD2d 650 [2003]; Matter of Zhigina v Adzhiashvili, 292 AD2d 625 [2002]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.