Opinion
2014-06-13
In the Matter of Paul F. GUGINO, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Diana TSVASMAN, Respondent–Respondent.
Schiano Law Office, P.C., Rochester (Charles A. Schiano, Jr., of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant. Lacy Katzen LLP, Rochester (Michael J. Wegman of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.
Schiano Law Office, P.C., Rochester (Charles A. Schiano, Jr., of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant. Lacy Katzen LLP, Rochester (Michael J. Wegman of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.
Tanya J. Conley, Attorney for the Child, Rochester.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, LINDLEY, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner father appeals from an order denying his petition, following a hearing, seeking to modify a prior custody order that granted sole custody of the parties' daughter to respondent mother. It is axiomatic that the party “seeking a change in an established custody arrangement must show a change in circumstances [that] reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest[s] of the child” (Matter of Moore v. Moore, 78 A.D.3d 1630, 1630, 910 N.Y.S.2d 803,lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 704, 2011 WL 500900 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Maher v. Maher, 1 A.D.3d 987, 988, 767 N.Y.S.2d 179). Family Court did not specifically address whether the father established a change of circumstances; however its determination that the father failed to establish that sole custody should be granted to him, rather than to the mother, “is the product of ‘careful weighing of [the] appropriate factors' ..., and it has a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of McLeod v. McLeod, 59 A.D.3d 1011, 1011, 872 N.Y.S.2d 313;see Fox v. Fox, 177 A.D.2d 209, 211, 582 N.Y.S.2d 863). We reject the father's contention that the court erred in referencing in its decision information that it obtained in the hearing it conducted two years earlier, inasmuch as a court has the power to take judicial notice of its own prior proceedings ( see Matter of A.R., 309 A.D.2d 1153, 1153, 764 N.Y.S.2d 746).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.