Modification of an existing custody or visitation order is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child” (Matter of Demille v. Pizzo, 129 A.D.3d 957, 957, 12 N.Y.S.3d 185 ; see Matter of Valencia v. Ripley, 128 A.D.3d 711, 9 N.Y.S.3d 112 ). The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ). “Since the Family Court's determination with respect to custody and visitation depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Hargrove v. Langenau, 138 A.D.3d 846, 847, 30 N.Y.S.3d 166 ; see Matter of Saldana v. Lopresti, 133 A.D.3d 669, 670, 20 N.Y.S.3d 382 ; Matter of Mack v. Kass, 115 A.D.3d 748, 749, 981 N.Y.S.2d 593 ). Here, contrary to the contention of the attorney for the child, the Family Court's determination that the mother failed to show that there was a change in circumstances warranting a modification of custody in the subject child's best interests is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Saldana v. Lopresti, 133 A.D.3d at 670, 20 N.Y.S.3d 382 ; Matter of Oakley v. Cond–Arnold, 130 A.D.3d 737, 739, 15 N.Y.S.3d 57 ; Matter of Demille v. Pizzo, 129 A.D.3d 957, 12 N.Y.S.3d 185 ).
howing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child (seeid. at 846, 30 N.Y.S.3d 166 ; Whitehead v. Whitehead, 122 A.D.3d 921, 921, 998 N.Y.S.2d 99 ; Matter ofKortlang v. Kortlang, 92 A.D.3d 785, 785, 938 N.Y.S.2d 457 ). The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (seeEschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 447 N.Y.S.2d 893, 432 N.E.2d 765 ). Since the Family Court's determination with respect to custody and parental access depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter ofHargrove v. Langenau, 138 A.D.3d at 847, 30 N.Y.S.3d 166 ; Saldana v. Lopresti, 133 A.D.3d 669, 670, 20 N.Y.S.3d 382 ; Mack v. Kass, 115 A.D.3d 748, 749, 981 N.Y.S.2d 593 ). Here, the Family Court's determination, in effect, that there had been no change in circumstances such that modification of the order dated December 10, 2014, was required to protect the best interests of the children
d 723, 723, 53 N.Y.S.3d 548; Matter of Scott v. Powell, 146 A.D.3d 964, 965, 45 N.Y.S.3d 557; Matter of Zall v. Theiss, 144 A.D.3d 831, 832, 40 N.Y.S.3d 555). The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (seeEschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171–173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Anonymous 2011–1 v. Anonymous 2011–2, 136 A.D.3d 946, 948, 26 N.Y.S.3d 203; McAvoy v. Hannigan, 107 A.D.3d 960, 962–963, 967 N.Y.S.2d 757 ). Since the Family Court's determination with respect to custody and visitation depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, deference is accorded to its findings in this regard, and such findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Estrada v. Palacios, 148 A.D.3d 804, 50 N.Y.S.3d 292 ; Matter of Hargrove v. Langenau, 138 A.D.3d 846, 30 N.Y.S.3d 166 ; Matter of Saldana v. Lopresti, 133 A.D.3d 669, 670, 20 N.Y.S.3d 382 ; Matter of Mack v. Kass, 115 A.D.3d 748, 749, 981 N.Y.S.2d 593 ).Here, there was testimony at the hearing that the parties had failed to follow various terms of the order of custody, and had repeatedly engaged in heated verbal disputes in the presence of the child.
The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-173; Anonymous 2011-1 v Anonymous 2011-2, 136 AD3d 946, 948; McAvoy v Hannigan, 107 AD3d 960, 962-963). Since the Family Court's determination with respect to custody and visitation depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, deference is accorded to its findings in this regard, and such findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Estrada v Palacios, 148 AD3d 804; Matter of Hargrove v Langenau, 138 AD3d 846, 847; Matter of Saldana v Lopresti, 133 AD3d 669, 670; Matter of Mack v Kass, 115 AD3d 748, 749). Here, contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's determination that there was a change in circumstances requiring a transfer of physical custody to the father in order to ensure the child's best interests has a sound and substantial basis in the record and, therefore, will not be disturbed (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173-174; Matter of DeVita v DeVita, 143 AD3d 981, 982-983; Matter of Rosenblatt v Rosenblatt, 129 AD3d 1091, 1092-1093).
N.Y.S.3d 557 ; Matter of Zall v. Theiss, 144 A.D.3d 831, 832, 40 N.Y.S.3d 555 ; Matter of Lao v. Gonzales, 130 A.D.3d 624, 624–625, 13 N.Y.S.3d 211 ). The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171–173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Anonymous 2011–1 v. Anonymous 2011–2, 136 A.D.3d 946, 948, 26 N.Y.S.3d 203 ; McAvoy v. Hannigan, 107 A.D.3d 960, 962–963, 967 N.Y.S.2d 757 ). Since the Family Court's determination with respect to custody and visitation depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, deference is accorded to its findings in this regard, and such findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Estrada v. Palacios, 148 A.D.3d 804, 50 N.Y.S.3d 292; Matter of Hargrove v. Langenau, 138 A.D.3d 846, 847, 30 N.Y.S.3d 166 ; Matter of Saldana v. Lopresti, 133 A.D.3d 669, 670, 20 N.Y.S.3d 382 ; Matter of Mack v. Kass, 115 A.D.3d 748, 749, 981 N.Y.S.2d 593 ).Here, contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's determination that there was a change in circumstances requiring a transfer of physical custody to the father in order to ensure the child's best interests has a sound and substantial basis in the record and, therefore, will not be disturbed (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 173–174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of DeVita v. DeVita, 143 A.D.3d 981, 982–983, 39 N.Y.S.3d 527 ; Matter of Rosenblatt v. Rosenblatt, 129 A.D.3d 1091, 1092–1093, 12 N.Y.S.3d 230 ).
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.The petitioner's appeal from the order dated May 9, 2016, must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Matter of Shahid v. City of New York, 144 A.D.3d 1164, 41 N.Y.S.3d 433 ; Matter of Saldana v. Lopresti, 133 A.D.3d 669, 20 N.Y.S.3d 382 ).CHAMBERS, J.P., HALL, MILLER and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The petitioner's appeal from the order dated May 9, 2016, must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Matter of Shahid v City of New York, 144 AD3d 1164; Matter of Saldana v Lopresti, 133 AD3d 669). CHAMBERS, J.P., HALL, MILLER and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.
The best interests of the children are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89). Since the Family Court's determination with respect to custody and visitation depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Saldana v Lopresti, 133 AD3d 669, 670; Matter of Mack v Kass, 115 AD3d 748, 749; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188). Here, the Family Court's determination that there had been a change in circumstances such that modification of the prior order of custody and visitation was required to protect the best interests of the children has a sound and substantial basis in the record.
The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89). Since the Family Court's determination with respect to custody and parental access depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Hargrove v Langenau, 138 A.D.3d at 847; Saldana v Lopresti, 133 A.D.3d 669, 670; Mack v Kass, 115 A.D.3d 748, 749).