Opinion
01-02-2015
In the Matter of Philip MARACLE, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Jessica R. DESCHAMPS, Respondent–Appellant.
David J. Pajak, Alden, for Respondent–Appellant. Tronolone & Surgalla, P.C., Buffalo (David C. Crowther of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent. Christopher J. Brechtel, Attorney for the Children, Buffalo.
David J. Pajak, Alden, for Respondent–Appellant. Tronolone & Surgalla, P.C., Buffalo (David C. Crowther of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Christopher J. Brechtel, Attorney for the Children, Buffalo.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
In this custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent mother appeals from an order that modified a prior order entered on stipulation of the parties by awarding petitioner father primary physical custody of the parties' children. Although the mother is correct that, in seeking to change an existing custody arrangement that is based upon a stipulation, the father was required to show a change in circumstances "since the time of the stipulation" (Matter of Hight v. Hight, 19 A.D.3d 1159, 1160, 796 N.Y.S.2d 494 [internal quotation marks omitted] ), we conclude, contrary to her contention, that there is a sound and substantial basis for Family Court's determination that the father had established such a change in circumstances (see generally Matter of Chapman v. Tucker, 74 A.D.3d 1905, 1906, 903 N.Y.S.2d 640 ; Matter of Bryan K.B. v. Destiny S.B., 43 A.D.3d 1448, 1449, 844 N.Y.S.2d 535 ). The mother does not challenge the merits of the court's determination that the children's best interests are served by awarding physical custody to the father.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.