Opinion
228 CAF 17–00088
03-16-2018
In the Matter of James DRAJEM, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Sarah CARR, Respondent–Appellant.
KATHLEEN E. CASEY, BARKER, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. ALVIN M. GREENE, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
KATHLEEN E. CASEY, BARKER, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
ALVIN M. GREENE, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent mother appeals from an order that modified a prior joint custody order by awarding petitioner father sole legal and physical custody of the subject child, with visitation to the mother. Initially, we note that the mother does not dispute that the continued deterioration of the parties' relationship and their inability to coparent constitutes a significant change in circumstances warranting an inquiry into whether a change in custody is in the child's best interests (see Werner v. Kenney, 142 A.D.3d 1351, 1351, 38 N.Y.S.3d 314 [4th Dept. 2016] ; Matter of Ladd v. Krupp , 136 A.D.3d 1391, 1392, 24 N.Y.S.3d 834 [4th Dept. 2016] ).
"[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" ( Matter of Bryan K.B. v. Destiny S.B. , 43 A.D.3d 1448, 1449, 844 N.Y.S.2d 535 [4th Dept. 2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173–174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ). Here, we conclude, contrary to the contention of the mother, that Family Court properly considered the appropriate factors in making its custody determination, and the record supports the court's conclusion that awarding sole custody to the father is in the child's best interests (see Werner , 142 A.D.3d at 1352, 38 N.Y.S.3d 314; Ladd, 136 A.D.3d at 1392–1393, 24 N.Y.S.3d 834 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.