Opinion
523 CAF 13-01536
05-01-2015
In the Matter of Charles L. HIGGINS, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Jesse M. HIGGINS, Respondent–Appellant.
Bridget L. Field, Rochester, for Respondent–Appellant. Charles L. Higgins, Petitioner–Respondent Pro Se. Peter M. Casey, Attorney for the Children, Batavia.
Bridget L. Field, Rochester, for Respondent–Appellant.
Charles L. Higgins, Petitioner–Respondent Pro Se.
Peter M. Casey, Attorney for the Children, Batavia.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Respondent mother appeals from an order that, insofar as appealed from, awarded petitioner father primary physical placement of the subject children. The mother contends that Family Court erred in determining that there was the requisite showing of a change in circumstances to warrant modification of the existing custody arrangement. We reject that contention. “ ‘It is well established that alteration of an established custody arrangement will be ordered only upon a showing of a change in circumstances which reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest [s] of the child[ren]’ ” (Amy L.M. v. Kevin M.M., 31 A.D.3d 1224, 1225, 817 N.Y.S.2d 850 ). Here, the father established the requisite change in circumstances by showing that the mother's residence “had become a ‘harried and chaotic environment’ that did not provide the subject children with the focused attention and structure they needed” (Matter of Graziani C.A. [Lisa A.], 117 A.D.3d 729, 730, 985 N.Y.S.2d 149 ). Contrary to the mother's further contention, we conclude that there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support the court's determination that it was in the children's best interests to award primary physical placement to the father (see Matter of Marino v. Marino, 90 A.D.3d 1694, 1695–1696, 935 N.Y.S.2d 818 ; see also Matter of Tarrant v. Ostrowski, 96 A.D.3d 1580, 1582, 947 N.Y.S.2d 726, lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 855, 2013 WL 69170 ). Considering that “a court's determination regarding custody ... issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight” (Marino, 90 A.D.3d at 1695, 935 N.Y.S.2d 818 [internal quotation marks omitted] ), we perceive no basis upon which to set aside the court's award of primary physical placement of the children to the father. Finally, we reject the mother's contention that she was deprived of a fair hearing because the court improperly admitted hearsay statements in evidence. Any error is harmless inasmuch as the court placed minimal, if any, reliance on those hearsay statements, and the evidence is otherwise sufficient to support the court's determination (see Matter of Tracy v. Tracy, 309 A.D.2d 1252, 1253, 765 N.Y.S.2d 548 ; Matter of Jelenic v. Jelenic, 262 A.D.2d 676, 678, 690 N.Y.S.2d 782 ; Matter of Liza C. v. Noel C., 207 A.D.2d 974, 974, 616 N.Y.S.2d 819 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.