OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs.

There is an affirmed finding that respondent furnished support for the child, thus tolling the two-year limitation period established by the Family Court Act (§ 517, subd [a]; see Matter of Vicki B. v David H., 57 NY2d 427). There is also a basis in the record for that finding. The limitations issue is, therefore, beyond our review (Laufer v Ostrow, 55 NY2d 305, 311-312).

On the merits, we agree with the Appellate Division that paternity was established by clear and convincing evidence. The more particularly is this so because the Appellate Division’s reference to respondent’s failure to testify shows that it was free to and did draw “the strongest inference against [respondent] that the opposing evidence in the record permits” (Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Patricia A.] v Philip De G., 59 NY2d 137).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Divi *901 sion brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.