DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order entered September 15, 1998, is reversed insofar as appealed from, the mother's objection to that part of the order dated July 22, 1998, which granted the father's petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Orange County, for a new determination in accordance herewith.
We agree with the Hearing Examiner that the father's loss of employment constituted a change of circumstances which warranted a downward modification of his child support obligation (see, Matter of Brescia v. Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132 ; Matter of Glinski v. Glinski, 199 A.D.2d 994 ; Matter of Preischel v. Preischel, 193 A.D.2d 1118 ; Dowd v. Dowd, 178 A.D.2d 330 ). The evidence supports the determination that the father lost his job through no fault of his own and diligently sought reemployment in his field. Therefore, the Family Court erred in vacating that part of the order of the Hearing Examiner dated July 22, 1998, which granted the father's petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.
The Hearing Examiner calculated the father's income based on the erroneous assumption that he had received 10 bi-weekly paychecks instead of five. It is unclear, moreover, whether the Hearing Examiner considered the amount of unemployment insurance benefits actually received by the father (see, Family Ct Act § 413[b][5][iii][c]). Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Family Court for a recalculation of the father's child support obligation in accordance with the CSSA and a determination as to whether the father is entitled to make reduced support payments after October 6, 1998, when he allegedly obtained new employment.
MANGANO, P.J., RITTER, GOLDSTEIN, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.