IN THE MATTER OF YAROSHENKO v. KATS

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the order dated December 12, 2002. The father failed to demonstrate that a substantial, unanticipated, and unreasonable change in circumstances warranted a downward modification of his child support obligation ( see Beard v. Beard, 300 A.D.2d 268; Linder v. Linder, 297 A.D.2d 711; Praeger v. Praeger, 162 A.D.2d 671).

Further, the Family Court properly imputed the loans the father received from his mother as income. Where, as here, a party's account of his or her income and assets is not credible, the Family Court is justified in finding a true or potential income higher than that claimed ( see Rohrs v. Rohrs, 297 A.D.2d 317).

SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.