The challenged imputation of income was properly based on plaintiff's testimony concerning the parties' marital lifestyle, and on defendant's testimony concerning his income and expenses that was so inconsistent, illogical and evasive as to support an adverse inference that he was hiding assets and deliberately reducing his income in order to avoid his obligation for child support (Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][b][5][v]; see, Wildenstein v. Wildenstein, 251 A.D.2d 189; cf., Gezelter v. Shoshani, 283 A.D.2d 455).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.