Order entered November 3, 1966, appealed from, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of striking the finding of a willful violation and the consequent direction for six months commitment of respondent. As so modified the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements to either party. The record supports a finding of nonpayment. However, it does not satisfactorily appear that the failure to pay was willful and not due solely to respondent's financial inability to meet the obligation. The mere fact of nonpayment does not establish the failure as willful (Family Ct. Act, § 454, subd. [a]; Matter of Pavich v. Pavich, 24 A.D.2d 482). Respondent urges that the failure of the Trial Judge in the Family Court to advise respondent of his right to have counsel assigned deprived him of his right to counsel, was a denial of due process and denied respondent the equal protection of the law. In the record there is a stipulation that respondent was advised of his right to counsel through his interpreter and that respondent did not request an adjournment in order to retain counsel. (See Matter of Silvestris v. Silvestris, 24 A.D.2d 247. )
Concur — Botein, P.J., Stevens, Tilzer, McNally and McGivern, JJ.