The court properly imputed income to plaintiff based on his well-documented earning history, his present earning potential, and his apparent intentional reduction in his earnings for the purposes of mitigating or avoiding his support obligations ( see Hickland v Hickland, 39 NY2d 1, 5-6, cert denied 429 US 941; Fruchter v Fruchter, 29 AD3d 942, 943). Notably, plaintiff offers no explanation for his failure to obtain or attempt to obtain comparable employment since the end of 2006, when his severance pay from his prior employer terminated.
We decline to disturb the pendente lite award, where there is no showing of exigent circumstances, and where the court gave proper consideration to the factors specified in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) ( see Sumner v Sumner, 289 AD2d 129, 130).
Defendant's request for preclusion sanctions was properly denied, where the record shows that any failure on defendant's part to comply with discovery was not willful, deliberate or in bad faith ( see Maillard v Maillard, 243 AD2d 448).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.