It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.
Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of respondent, Family Court properly imputed income to him in the amount of $70,000. Pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (b) (5) (v), "if the court determines that a parent has reduced [his or her] resources or income in order to reduce or avoid [his or her] obligation for child support," the court may impute income to the parent based upon former resources or prior employment experiences as well as future earning capacity based upon educational background ( see Matter of Collins v. Collins, 241 AD2d 725, 727 , appeal dismissed and lv denied 91 NY2d 829). The court "has `considerable discretion' to attribute or impute income to a parent based upon his or her ability to earn sufficient means to pay child support" ( Matter of Liebman v. Liebman, 229 AD2d 778, 779, quoting Matter of Susan M. v. Louis N., 206 AD2d 612, 613; see Matter of Cattaraugus County Commr. of Social Servs. v. Bund, 259 AD2d 973). In determining a parent's child support obligation, a court need not rely on the accounting of the parent with respect to his or her financial resources and, "where a party's account is not believable, the court is justified in finding a true or potential income higher than that claimed" ( Matter of Thomas v. DeFalco, 270 AD2d 277, 278). Income may properly be imputed when there are no reliable records of a parent's actual employment income or evidence of a genuine and substantial effort to secure gainful employment ( see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Daeda] v. Monica, 10 AD3d 260).
Here, the court determined the income of respondent based on his pre-1999 income, his education, his experience and his future earning capacity ( see id.), and respondent failed to establish his entitlement to a lower income ( see Matter of Duguay v. Paoletti, 279 AD2d 767, 768). Respondent failed to submit evidence of "genuine and sustained efforts to secure gainful employment" ( Monica, 10 AD3d at 260). Moreover, the record establishes that respondent's credibility was impeached, and thus the court was entitled to discredit the accounting of respondent's financial resources provided by respondent ( see Thomas, 270 AD2d at 278).
Respondent's further contention that the court erred in taking judicial notice of prior proceedings is not preserved for our review ( see generally Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985) and, in any event, is without merit ( see Matter of A.R., 309 AD2d 1153).
We have reviewed respondent's remaining contentions and conclude that they either are unpreserved for our review or are without merit.