father testified hearing in New York

2014Even assuming, arguendo, that the funds were deducted from the father’s inmate account, we conclude under the circumstances of this case that the deduction of such funds does not constitute communication with the child or petitioner sufficient “to defeat an otherwise viable claim of abandonment” (Matter of Angela N.S. [Joshua S.], 100 AD3d 1381 , 1382 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [a]).

2014Even assuming, arguendo, that the funds were deducted from the father’s inmate account, we conclude under the circumstances of this case that the deduction of such funds does not constitute communication with the child or petitioner sufficient “to defeat an otherwise viable claim of abandonment” (Matter of Angela N.S. [Joshua S.], 100 AD3d 1381 , 1382 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [a]).

2026The father testified at the hearing that after 12 years in an advertising and sales role at a prominent technology company, he chose to work without pay at his family's restaurant business instead of attempting to secure employment commensurate with his education, abilities, and experience ( see Matter of Cato v Cato , 134 AD3d at 822 ; Matter of Muselevichus v Muselevichus , 40 AD3d 997, 999 ).

2026The father testified at the hearing that after 12 years in an advertising and sales role at a prominent technology company, he chose to work without pay at his family's restaurant business instead of attempting to secure employment commensurate with his education, abilities, and experience ( see Matter of Cato v Cato , 134 AD3d at 822 ; Matter of Muselevichus v Muselevichus , 40 AD3d 997, 999 ).

2026In addition, the father's testimony demonstrated that he continued to own considerable real estate assets ( see Kay v Kay , 37 NY2d 632, 636-637 ).

2012Moreover, the father did not submit a paycheck (see Matter of Sena v Sena, 65 AD3d at 1245 ), and failed to explain how, on a salary of only $300 per week and his wife’s disability payments of $600 per month, he could support himself, his wife, and their three children, and pay a mortgage in excess of $3,000 per month (see DeSouza-Brown v Brown, 71 AD3d 946 [2010]).

2012Moreover, the father did not submit a paycheck (see Matter of Sena v Sena, 65 AD3d at 1245 ), and failed to explain how, on a salary of only $300 per week and his wife’s disability payments of $600 per month, he could support himself, his wife, and their three children, and pay a mortgage in excess of $3,000 per month (see DeSouza-Brown v Brown, 71 AD3d 946 [2010]).

2008In any event, the court’s determination that it was in the child’s best interests to modify the father’s visitation schedule is not supported by a substantial basis in the record (see generally Matter of Bryan K.B. v Destiny S.B., 43 AD3d 1448 [2007]).

2008Although the father testified at the hearing on the petition that his petition was based upon his desire to spend more time with the child, his dissatisfaction with the stipulated order, without more, is insufficient to establish a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification of the prior order (see generally Matter of Echols v Weiner, 46 AD3d 825 [2007]).

2007The conflicting testimony of the father and the caseworker presented a credibility issue for the court to resolve, and its resolution of credibility issues is entitled to great weight (see Matter of Female F, 40 AD3d 993 [2007]; see also Matter of Joseph E., 16 AD3d 1148 [2005]).