Opinion
2014-03-26
In the Matter of Brian T. BEGY, respondent, v. Ann Marie BEGY, appellant.
Jay J. Massaro, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant. Rhonda R. Weir, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
Jay J. Massaro, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant. Rhonda R. Weir, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
Donna M. McCabe, East Atlantic Beach, N.Y., attorney for the child.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Phillips, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 10, 2013, which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition to modify an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Garguilo, J.), dated September 11, 2009, made on consent of the parties, so as to award the father sole legal and residential custody of their child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
To warrant modification of an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 652[a]; Matter of Hixenbaugh v. Hixenbaugh, 111 A.D.3d 636, 637, 974 N.Y.S.2d 287;Matter of Quintanilla v. Morales, 110 A.D.3d 1081, 974 N.Y.S.2d 261,lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 1130, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op 64146, 2014 WL 642786 [2014] ). “The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Hixenbaugh v. Hixenbaugh, 111 A.D.3d at 637, 974 N.Y.S.2d 287 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260). “Since any custody determination depends to a very great extent upon the hearing court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great respect and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Davis v. Pignataro, 97 A.D.3d 677, 677–678, 948 N.Y.S.2d 378 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Quintanilla v. Morales, 110 A.D.3d at 1081–1082, 974 N.Y.S.2d 261).
Here, contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly considered the totality of the circumstances, and its determination that there had been a sufficient change in circumstances requiring a change in custody to protect the best interests of the subject child is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. Thus, the court's determination will not be disturbed ( see Matter of Angelina L.C. [Michael C.-Patricia H.-C.], 110 A.D.3d 793, 796, 973 N.Y.S.2d 668;Matter of Yearwood v. Yearwood, 90 A.D.3d 771, 773, 935 N.Y.S.2d 578;Matter of Troy SS. v. Judy UU., 69 A.D.3d 1128, 1130, 1132–1133, 894 N.Y.S.2d 186;Matter of Sloand v. Sloand, 30 A.D.3d 784, 785–786, 816 N.Y.S.2d 603;see also Matter of Berkham v. Vessia, 63 A.D.3d 1155, 1156, 882 N.Y.S.2d 449).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.