Opinion
07-01-2016
In the Matter of Lance CARROLL, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Rickelle CHUGG, Respondent–Appellant.
Bridget L. Field, Rochester, for Respondent–Appellant. Keliann M. Argy, Orchard Park, for Petitioner–Respondent. Wendy S. Sisson, Attorney for the Child, Geneseo.
Bridget L. Field, Rochester, for Respondent–Appellant.
Keliann M. Argy, Orchard Park, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Wendy S. Sisson, Attorney for the Child, Geneseo.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent mother appeals from an order that modified a prior custody order by allowing petitioner father to take the child to a family reunion in Montana during his summer visitation with the child. Preliminarily, we note that the issue raised by the Attorney for the Child (AFC), i.e., that the father failed to establish a change in circumstances, is “beyond our review,” inasmuch as the AFC did not file a notice of appeal (Matter of Yorimar K.-M., 309 A.D.2d 1148, 1149, 765 N.Y.S.2d 283 ; see Matter of Baxter v. Borden, 122 A.D.3d 1417, 1418–1419, 998 N.Y.S.2d 541, lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 915, 2015 WL 649304 ). Although the mother appears to adopt the AFC's contention, “that issue is not properly before us because it is raised for the first time in [the mother's] reply brief” (Yorimar K.-M., 309 A.D.2d at 1149, 765 N.Y.S.2d 283 ).
Contrary to the mother's contention, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for Family Court's determination that the child would benefit from visiting her relatives in Montana, and the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the father to take her there during his summer visitation (see Matter of Russo v. Carmel, 86 A.D.3d 952, 953, 927 N.Y.S.2d 273, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 713, 2011 WL 4916404 ; see also Matter of Hermanowski v. Hermanowski, 57 A.D.3d 777, 778, 869 N.Y.S.2d 587 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.