Opinion
716 CAF 17–01803
06-29-2018
In the Matter of Jocelyn J. JONES, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Justin S. JAMIESON, Respondent–Respondent.
J. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, WILLIAMSVILLE (JOAN CASILIO ADAMS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT. KEITH I. KADISH, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
J. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, WILLIAMSVILLE (JOAN CASILIO ADAMS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT.
KEITH I. KADISH, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
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, petitioner mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, modified the visitation schedule for the mother and respondent father with respect to the subject child. We note at the outset that the mother contends that Family Court did not rule on the six violation petitions that she had filed. The record, however, establishes that the court issued five orders that dismissed five of the six violation petitions. Inasmuch as the mother did not appeal from those five orders, we conclude that the mother's contention with respect to those five violation petitions is not properly before us (see Matter of Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick, 117 A.D.3d 1575, 1576, 985 N.Y.S.2d 368 [4th Dept. 2014] ; Matter of Sharyn PP. v. Richard QQ., 83 A.D.3d 1140, 1143, 921 N.Y.S.2d 656 [3d Dept. 2011] ). Furthermore, in the order from which the mother has appealed, the court ruled in the mother's favor with respect to the sixth violation petition and awarded her $750 in attorney's fees. To the extent that the mother did not obtain all of the relief that she sought in the sixth violation petition, by failing to raise any issues with respect to the court's ruling on that petition in her brief, the mother has abandoned any contentions with respect thereto (see Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 984, 609 N.Y.S.2d 745 [4th Dept. 1994] ).
We reject the mother's contention that the court erred in modifying the visitation schedule. It is well settled that 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] ). We note that, as modified, the visitation schedule reduces the number of exchanges of the child between the parties, which was a constant source of discord (see generally Matter of Adams v. Bracci, 91 A.D.3d 1046, 1049, 936 N.Y.S.2d 738 [3d Dept. 2012], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 809, 2012 WL 1033620 [2012] ; Matter of La Scola v. Litz, 258 A.D.2d 792, 793, 685 N.Y.S.2d 862 [3d Dept. 1999], lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 809, 694 N.Y.S.2d 631, 716 N.E.2d 696 [1999] ). Contrary to the mother's contention, she failed to establish that reducing the father's visitation time would be in the child's best interests. Thus, we discern no basis for disturbing the court's determination (see Matter of Rought v. Palidar, 6 A.D.3d 1112, 1112, 775 N.Y.S.2d 678 [4th Dept. 2004] ; see generally Bryan K.B., 43 A.D.3d at 1449, 844 N.Y.S.2d 535 ). We have reviewed the mother's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.