ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The proof before the Hearing Examiner concerning the father's failure to pay court-ordered child support constituted prima facie evidence of his willful violation of the prior support order (see, Family Ct Act § 454[a]; York v. York, 250 A.D.2d 838; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 232 A.D.2d 572). The burden then shifted to the father "to offer some competent, credible evidence of his inability to make the required payments" (Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 69-70). The Hearing Examiner properly rejected the father's claims of unemployment and impoverishment, since he failed to demonstrate that he had made reasonable efforts to obtain gainful employment to meet his child support obligations (see, Dorner v. McCarroll, 271 A.D.2d 530; Bouchard v. Bouchard, 263 A.D.2d 775; Walsh v. Walsh, 227 A.D.2d 497), and was evasive concerning how he met his own expenses and purchased a mobile home while owing significant child support arrears (see, Mazzilli v. Mazzilli, 248 A.D.2d 474). Thus, the Family Court properly found that the father willfully violated the prior support order.
The father's contention that the Hearing Examiner was predisposed to find in the mother's favor is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Stone v. Stone, 236 A.D.2d 615; Spiegel v. Smith, 212 A.D.2d 717). In any event, the contention is without merit (see, Orzechowski v. Orzechowski, 206 A.D.2d 535; Zirkind v. Zirkind, 218 A.D.2d 745).
O'BRIEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SMITH and ADAMS, JJ., concur.