Opinion
May 18, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court of Albany County (Tepedino, J.H.O.).
Petitioner seeks modification of a prior order awarding custody of the parties' two children to respondent. She argues that joint custody is now appropriate because she has obtained employment, is working toward a nursing degree, has adequate living facilities for the children, and wishes to spend time with them and to see that they receive religious education. After hearing petitioner's proof, Family Court granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition, and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. Although Family Court should have been more explicit with regard to the factual basis for its determination (see, CPLR 4213 [b]; Matter of Jose L.I., 46 N.Y.2d 1024, 1025-1026), remittal is nevertheless unwarranted for the record is inadequate, as a matter of law, to support a modification (see, Matter of Sunshine A.Y., 88 A.D.2d 662; compare, Giordano v Giordano, 93 A.D.2d 310, 312, affd 96 A.D.2d 653). Even when all of the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to petitioner, it does not demonstrate a change in circumstances of sufficient magnitude that a modification in the established custody arrangement is necessary to insure the children's welfare (see, Matter of McCauliffe v Peace, 176 A.D.2d 382, 383; Matter of Julian v Carey, 124 A.D.2d 318, 319). Nor has petitioner presented evidence indicating that joint custody would be appropriate or workable for these parties (see, Braiman v Braiman, 44 N.Y.2d 584, 589-590).
Mikoll, J.P., Mercure, Crew III and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.