GLEICHER v. GLEICHER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the father's contention, he waived any argument concerning mediation of the child support issue. The father consented to the court's adjudication of the issue of child support, including the court's calculation of child support pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter the CSSA).

Article V(1)(c) of the parties' separation agreement does not mandate that the father's child support obligation be calculated solely by considering his tax returns. This article does not set forth an exhaustive list of documents and factors that the court can use to calculate the father's income. Here, the father failed to comply with his responsibilities under the parties' separation agreement to provide the mother with his financial documents, as required by Article V(1)(c), to aid in calculating his income for child support purposes. Since the father attempted to hide income and provided less than credible testimony and evidentiary submissions concerning his actual income, the court did not have to rely on his account of his finances and properly imputed income to him (see Walker v. Walker, 289 A.D.2d 225; Zabezhanskaya v. Dinhofer, 274 A.D.2d 476).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding testimony and evidentiary submissions regarding the father's business expenditures since he wilfully violated discovery orders (see CPLR 3126; Caccioppoli v. Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 271 A.D.2d 565; Matter of Cicardi v. Cicardi, 267 A.D.2d 784; Kingsley v. Kantor, 265 A.D.2d 529; see also La Porte v. La Porte, 263 A.D.2d 585; Faber v. Faber, 206 A.D.2d 644).

The Supreme Court properly applied the CSSA guidelines to that portion of the combined parental income of the parties which exceeded $80,000 (see Matter of Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649; cf. Pauk v. Pauk, 232 A.D.2d 386).

RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.