From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Flint v. Ely

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 29, 2012
96 A.D.3d 1681 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-06-29

In the Matter of Melissa A. FLINT, Petitioner–Respondent–Appellant, v. Andrew L. ELY, Respondent–Petitioner–Respondent.

Wagner & Hart, LLP, Olean (Janine Fodor of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent–Appellant. David C. Brautigam, Attorney for the Child, Houghton, for Dylan E.



Wagner & Hart, LLP, Olean (Janine Fodor of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent–Appellant. David C. Brautigam, Attorney for the Child, Houghton, for Dylan E.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Petitioner-respondent mother appeals from an order that, following a hearing, modified the prior custody order pursuant to which the parties had shared physical custody of their child and awarded primary physical custody of the child to respondent-petitioner father and visitation to the mother. The parties agreed that a change in circumstances was created by virtue of the fact that the child had reached the age where he was attending school, rendering the existing shared physical custody arrangement impractical, and thus we need only address whether it was in the child's best interests to award primaryphysical custody to the father ( see Matter of Dubuque v. Bremiller, 79 A.D.3d 1743, 1744, 913 N.Y.S.2d 855). Contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court properly determined that awarding primary physical custody of the child to the father was in the child's best interests. “ ‘Generally, a court's determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record’ ” ( id.). Here, the court's determination that both parties are fit and loving parents but that the father is better able to provide for the child's needs is supported by the requisite “ ‘sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” and thus will not be disturbed ( id.).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.


Summaries of

Flint v. Ely

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 29, 2012
96 A.D.3d 1681 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Flint v. Ely

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Melissa A. FLINT, Petitioner–Respondent–Appellant, v…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 29, 2012

Citations

96 A.D.3d 1681 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
947 N.Y.S.2d 735
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 5282

Citing Cases

Saunders v. Stull

“ ‘Generally, a court's determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand…

M.B.E. v. R.E.

Even if both parents are "fit parents," the court can award primary residence based on the "best interests"…