Opinion
No. 32 CAF 21-01551
02-10-2023
IN THE MATTER OF ANDREW J. FANFARILLO, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. DAWN A. FANFARILLO, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
JOHN J. RASPANTE, UTICA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. MICHAEL G. PUTTER, ROME, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. STEPHANIE N. DAVIS, OSWEGO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
JOHN J. RASPANTE, UTICA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL G. PUTTER, ROME, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
STEPHANIE N. DAVIS, OSWEGO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND MONTOUR, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Paul M. Deep, J.), entered June 17, 2021 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, awarded primary physical custody of the subject children to petitioner.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, modified a prior order entered on stipulation of the parties by awarding petitioner father primary physical custody of the children. Initially, we note that, contrary to the mother's contention, the gaps in the trial transcript resulting from inaudible parts of the audio recording "are not so significant as to preclude meaningful review of the order on appeal" (Matter of Van Court v Wadsworth, 122 A.D.3d 1339, 1340 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 916 [2015]; see Matter of Vaccaro v Vaccaro, 178 A.D.3d 1410, 1411 [4th Dept 2019]).
Contrary to the mother's contention, we conclude that the father established the requisite change in circumstances (see Matter of Rice v Wightman, 167 A.D.3d 1529, 1530 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 903 [2019]; Matter of DeJesus v Gonzalez, 136 A.D.3d 1358, 1359 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 906 [2016]). To the extent that the mother challenges the merits of Family Court's best interests determination, we conclude that the children's best interests are served by awarding primary physical custody to the father (see Matter of Miner v Torres, 179 A.D.3d 1490, 1492 [4th Dept 2020]).