DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Upon the exercise of our broad review powers in custody matters (see, Matter of Louise E. S. v. W. Stephen S., 64 N.Y.2d 946; Lenczycki v. Lenczycki, 152 A.D.2d 621), we conclude that the custody determination is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, and we decline to disturb it (see, Matter of Gloria S. v. Richard B., 80 A.D.2d 72, 76).
The defendant's primary contention with respect to the pendente lite awards was that they were excessive. However, he has made that argument to this court on two previous appeals (see, Walker v. Walker, 193 A.D.2d 730; Walker v. Walker, 227 A.D.2d 469), and further consideration of his arguments is barred by the doctrine of law of the case (see, Shroid Constr. v. Dattoma, 250 A.D.2d 590). To the extent that he argues that the Supreme Court erred in denying, in effect, his motion pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 241 to suspend his support payments, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion as the plaintiff did not wrongfully interfere with his visitation rights (see, Matter of Vanderhoff v. Vanderhoff, 207 A.D.2d 494; Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 164 A.D.2d 906; Resnick v. Zoldan, 134 A.D.2d 246).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly imputed income to him in determining his child support obligations is without merit. "In determining a party's maintenance or child support obligation, a court need not rely upon the party's own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party's past income or demonstrated earning potential" (Brown v. Brown, 239 A.D.2d 535; see, Kay v. Kay, 37 N.Y.2d 632; Brodsky v. Brodsky, 214 A.D.2d 599). Here, the Supreme Court properly imputed an annual income of $50,000 to the defendant based on his own testimony and the facts adduced at trial.
Finally, the defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred when it did not impose a constructive trust on certain properties conveyed by him to the plaintiff during the marriage. However, the defendant testified that he conveyed the properties as part of a fraudulent scheme to hide them from his creditors. Accordingly, he forfeited his right to seek the equitable remedy of a constructive trust (see, Vasquez v. Zambrano, 196 A.D.2d 840; Ta Chun Wang v. Chun Wong, 163 A.D.2d 300, 302, cert denied 501 U.S. 1252).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
O'BRIEN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.