DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated May 3, 2002, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies as of right from that order and we decline to grant leave to appeal ( see Family Ct Act § 1112); and it further,
ORDERED that the order dated May 31, 2002, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The proof before the Hearing Examiner of the appellant's failure to pay court-ordered child support constituted prima facie evidence of a willful violation of the support order ( see Family Ct Act § 454[a]; York v. York, 250 A.D.2d 838; Matter of Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 232 A.D.2d 572). The burden of going forward then shifted to the appellant to offer competent, credible evidence of his inability to comply with the order ( see Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 69-70). The appellant failed to meet this burden ( see Matter of Dorner v. McCarroll, 271 A.D.2d 530;_ Matter of Bouchard v. Bouchard, 263 A.D.2d 775; Matter of Mazzilli v. Mazilli, 248 A.D.2d 474; Matter of Walsh v. Walsh, 227 A.D.2d 497). Thus, the finding that his violation of the support order was willful was supported by the evidence.
The appellant's contentions concerning an order dated August 29, 2000, entered upon his default, are not properly before this court in view of the fact that his appeal from a subsequent order denying his motion to vacate his default was previously dismissed for failure to prosecute ( see Bray v. Cox, 38 N.Y.2d 350; Jeff Isaac Rare Coins v. Atlantic Discount Brokerage, 196 A.D.2d 643) . In any event, the contentions are without merit ( see Matter of Fierro v. Fierro, 211 A.D.2d 676).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit ( see Matter of Roth v. Bowman, 245 A.D.2d 521).
SANTUCCI, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.