Opinion
2014-10035 Docket Nos. V-18579-02/14AR V-18579-02/14AS.
02-03-2016
In the Matter of Adam M. SACHS, respondent, v. Irina ASOTSKAYA, appellant.
Lisa Siano, Merrick, N.Y., for appellant. Jan Murphy, Huntington, N.Y., for respondent. Amy L. Colvin, Huntington, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Lisa Siano, Merrick, N.Y., for appellant.
Jan Murphy, Huntington, N.Y., for respondent.
Amy L. Colvin, Huntington, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Opinion
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Elaine Jackson Stack, J.H.O.), dated October 3, 2014. The order, after a hearing, insofar as appealed from, granted the father's petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation of that court dated March 15, 2013, by modifying certain provisions with respect to the mother's parenting time with the parties' child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The father petitioned to modify an order of custody and visitation. He alleged that the mother had repeatedly violated the terms and conditions of the parental access schedule. After a hearing, the Family Court found that the mother violated the terms of the prior order and granted the father's petition by, inter alia, limiting the mother's parenting time with the parties' child to the first and third weekends of each month and directing that all exchanges of the child occur at the police station in Brookville, New York. The mother appeals.
A party seeking modification of an existing custody or visitation order must demonstrate that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child (see Matter of Preciado v. Ireland, 125 A.D.3d 662, 662, 2 N.Y.S.3d 594; Matter of Holmes v. Holmes, 116 A.D.3d 955, 955, 983 N.Y.S.2d 850). Upon reviewing a Family Court's determination regarding modification of custody or visitation following a hearing, we must keep in mind that the Family Court was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and the character and sincerity of all the parties involved (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173–174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260; Matter of Ennis v. Piterniak, 134 A.D.3d 823, 825, 20 N.Y.S.3d 645). Accordingly, we will not disturb that court's determination unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Ennis v. Piterniak, 134 A.D.3d at 823, 20 N.Y.S.3d 645; Matter of Preciado v. Ireland, 125 A.D.3d at 662, 2 N.Y.S.3d 594).
Here, the record contains a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court's determination that the mother knowingly violated the provisions of the prior order on many occasions. These violations amounted to a change in circumstances such that modification of the prior order was required to ensure the child's best interests (see Matter of Preciado v. Ireland, 125 A.D.3d at 662, 2 N.Y.S.3d 594; Matter of Quintanilla v. Morales, 110 A.D.3d 1081, 1082, 974 N.Y.S.2d 261). Moreover, inasmuch as the Family Court's specific modifications of the prior order are supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and are consistent with the best interests of the child, we decline to disturb them (see Matter of Ennis v. Piterniak, 134 A.D.3d 823, 825, 20 N.Y.S.3d 645 Matter of Rodriguez v. Silva, 121 A.D.3d 794, 796, 993 N.Y.S.2d 733; Matter of Torres v. Ojeda, 108 A.D.3d 570, 571, 968 N.Y.S.2d 191).
The mother's remaining contention is without merit (see Matter of Hixenbaugh v. Hixenbaugh, 111 A.D.3d 636, 637, 974 N.Y.S.2d 287).
Accordingly, the father's petition was properly granted.