IN THE MATTER OF SAREN v. PALMA

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the mother's contention, the Hearing Examiner properly denied her application to direct the father pay a pro rata share of child care expenses, as she failed to prove that she incurred such expenses ( see Family Ct Act § 413[c][4]). The Hearing Examiner also properly declined to impute additional income to the father. The findings regarding the father's income were based on credibility determinations and are supported by the record. Therefore, they should not be disturbed ( see Matter of Coniglio v. Coniglio, 295 A.D.2d 509; Matter of Jackson v. Shuler, 292 A.D.2d 529, 530).

The mother's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.