Ordered that the appeal, from the order entered January 9, 1992 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated June 9, 1992, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated June 9, 1992 is reversed insofar as appealed from, the order entered January 9, 1992, is vacated, and the father's objections are denied; and it is further,
Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.
Upon our review of this record, it is our view that the Family Court improvidently granted the father's objections to the findings of the Hearing Examiner and suspended the father's obligation to provide medical insurance for the parties' two minor children. Great weight should be given to the determination of the Hearing Examiner, who was in the best position to hear and evaluate the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses (see, Matter of King v King, 193 A.D.2d 800; Matter of Dinkins v Mabry, 194 A.D.2d 787, 788-789; Matter of Gilzinger v Stern, 186 A.D.2d 652). We find no basis to overturn the Hearing Examiner's determination.
The mother established "changed circumstances" warranting an upward modification of child support from $95 per week to $133 per week for the parties' two minor children (see, Family Ct Act § 461 [b] [ii]; Matter of Gray v Gray, 103 A.D.2d 960). Further, the Hearing Examiner properly found that the evidence was sufficient to warrant that the father contribute $45 per week toward the son's college expenses (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [7]; Manno v Manno, 196 A.D.2d 488). Lawrence, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.