Opinion
3617.
04-04-2017
In re PAUL P., Petitioner–Respondent, v. TONISHA J., Respondent–Appellant.
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), for appellant. Daniel R. Katz, New York, for respondent. Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, attorney for the child.
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), for appellant.
Daniel R. Katz, New York, for respondent.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, attorney for the child.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, KAPNICK, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa–Lintner, J.), entered on or about January 15, 2016, which, after a hearing, denied respondent mother's request for custody, and granted petitioner father's petition for modification of visitation to the extent of, among other things, modifying the mother's visitation to one day a week, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The mother's unsubstantiated claim that she completed drug treatment and received therapy for her depression was not a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a change in custody from the father to the mother (Family Ct. Act § 652[b][ii] ; Matter of Leonard F. v. Jolanta J., 162 A.D.2d 215, 216, 556 N.Y.S.2d 334 [1st Dept.1990] ). Nor was there any evidence that the father was an unfit father or that continued custody with him was not in the best interest of the parties' child (see Matter of Isaac C. v. Veronica R., 18 A.D.3d 327, 794 N.Y.S.2d 647 [1st Dept.2005] ).
Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the mother's request for an in camera interview of the child. The court was aware of the child's preferences, since the child's counsel stated during the hearing that the child wanted to live with the father and visit the mother (see Matter of Martin V. v. Karen Beth G., 305 A.D.2d 305, 306, 759 N.Y.S.2d 324 [1st Dept.2003] ).
Family Court's finding that it is in the child's best interest to change the mother's visitation to once a week has a sound and substantial basis in the record. The evidence shows that the mother failed to supervise the child and did not adhere to the court's prior order (see Matter of Thomas v. Osborne, 51 A.D.3d 1064, 1068, 857 N.Y.S.2d 323 [3d Dept.2008] ).