IN RE KIRCHAIN

Ordered that the order entered April 16, 2010, is affirmed, with costs.

In reviewing a determination of the Family Court, deference should be given to the credibility determinations of the Support Magistrate, who was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses ( see Matter of Kahl-Lapine v Lapine, 35 AD3d 611, 612; Matter of Musarra v Musarra, 28 AD3d 668, 669; Matter of Mahoney v Goggins, 24 AD3d 668, 669; Matter of Penninipede v Penninipede, 6 AD3d 445, 447). The record supports the Support Magistrate's finding that the father was responsible for the sum of $1,129.63 in unreimbursed medical expenses for the parties' child ( see Matter of Kahl-Lapine v Lapine, 35 AD3d at 612; Matter of Penninipede v Penninipede, 6 AD3d at 447).

The mother met her initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence of the father's nonpayment of his pro rata share of certain unreimbursed medical expenses ( see Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 69; Matter of Paccione v Paccione, 57 AD3d 900, 902-903). However, the father offered evidence sufficient to rebut her showing. The father's sworn testimony and documentary evidence established that he had paid the mother for a portion of the medical expenses for which she sought reimbursement. The record does not support the mother's contention that the Support Magistrate made a mathematical error: Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother's objections to the Support Magistrate's order ( see Matter of Mahoney v Goggins, 24 AD3d at 669).