Opinion
2015-03-11
In the Matter of Jose A. NAVARRETE, respondent, v. Iveliz NAVARRETE, appellant.
Helene M. Greenberg, Elmsford, N.Y., for appellant. Andrew W. Szczesniak, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.
Helene M. Greenberg, Elmsford, N.Y., for appellant. Andrew W. Szczesniak, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.
Eddie Still, Bedford Hills, N.Y., attorney for the child.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Hal B. Greenwald, J.), entered December 6, 2013. The order, inter alia, granted the father's petition to modify a prior order of custody so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the subject child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“A party seeking the modification of an existing court-sanctioned child custody arrangement has the burden of demonstrating that circumstances have changed since the initial custody determination to the extent that modification is necessary to insure the child's best interests” ( Matter of Klotz v. O'Connor, 124 A.D.3d 662, 662, 1 N.Y.S.3d 352 [2015]; see Matter of Thompson v. Battle, 99 A.D.3d 804, 806, 952 N.Y.S.2d 251; Matter of Nava v. Kinsler, 85 A.D.3d 1186, 1186, 926 N.Y.S.2d 310). Here, immediately following the conclusion of a family offense proceeding in which the mother's inappropriate conduct toward the subject child and others, and the father's positive parental relationship with the child, were amply demonstrated at a hearing, the Family Court granted the father's petition to modify custody without conducting an additional hearing. Contrary to the mother's contention, a separate hearing and the submission of additional forensic evidence was unnecessary under the circumstances of this case, since the Family Court had adequate relevant information, including the testimony adduced at the hearing in the family offense proceeding and the report of a forensic evaluator, to enable it to render a provident and informed determination as to the petition to modify custody and the subject child's best interests ( see Matter of Fayona C. v. Christopher T., 103 A.D.3d 424, 424, 959 N.Y.S.2d 183; Matter of Sepulveda v. Perez, 90 A.D.3d 1057, 1058–1059, 936 N.Y.S.2d 226; Matter of Perez v. Sepulveda, 51 A.D.3d 673, 673, 857 N.Y.S.2d 659). Moreover, the Family Court's determination as to custody and visitation has a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Morocho v. Jordan, 123 A.D.3d 1037, 999 N.Y.S.2d 172; Matter of Guzman v. Pizarro, 102 A.D.3d 964, 965, 958 N.Y.S.2d 491; Matter of McLean v. Simpson, 82 A.D.3d 1101, 1102, 918 N.Y.S.2d 896).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.