Opinion
2019-02881 Docket Nos. V-1231-17, V-1232-17
06-03-2020
In the Matter of Leon HENRY, Appellant, v. Stefanie FIALA, Respondent.
Joseph H. Nivin, Forest Hills, NY, for appellant. Francine Scotto, Staten Island, NY, for respondent. Marc A. Berk, Staten Island, NY, attorney for the children.
Joseph H. Nivin, Forest Hills, NY, for appellant.
Francine Scotto, Staten Island, NY, for respondent.
Marc A. Berk, Staten Island, NY, attorney for the children.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Peter F. DeLizzo, J.), dated February 27, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, denied the father's petition, in effect, to modify a prior order of parental access of the same court.
ORDERED that the order dated February 27, 2019, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. An existing order of parental access may be modified only upon a showing that there has been such a change in circumstances since the issuance of the order that modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child (see Matter of Licato v. Jornet, 146 A.D.3d 787, 45 N.Y.S.3d 171 ; Matter of Rogan v. Guida, 143 A.D.3d 830, 39 N.Y.S.3d 55 ; Matter of Rambali v. Rambali, 102 A.D.3d 797, 958 N.Y.S.2d 188 ). Moreover, because determinations with regard to parental access depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, this Court accords deference to the Family Court's findings and will not set them aside unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Clarke v. Wiltshire, 145 A.D.3d 776, 43 N.Y.S.3d 445 ). Furthermore, considerable deference must be accorded to the court's assessment of the parties, inasmuch as the assessment rests on that court's superior position to evaluate the witnesses' demeanor and credibility (see Matter of Wright v. Stewart, 131 A.D.3d 1256, 16 N.Y.S.3d 860 ; Matter of Santano v. Cezair, 106 A.D.3d 1097, 966 N.Y.S.2d 196 ). When determining issues of custody and parental access, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of Jules v. Corriette, 76 A.D.3d 1016, 908 N.Y.S.2d 89 ).
Here, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court's determination to deny the father's petition, in effect, to modify the prior order of parental access so as to allow him unsupervised parental access with the children. Accordingly, the court's determination will not be disturbed.
DILLON, J.P., MALTESE, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.