Opinion
2014-02-13
In the Matter of Daniel S. SCHMIDT, respondent, v. Janeen DUNN, appellant.
Karen M. Caggiano, Shirley, N.Y., for appellant. Linda S. Morrison, Commack, N.Y., for respondent.
Karen M. Caggiano, Shirley, N.Y., for appellant. Linda S. Morrison, Commack, N.Y., for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Amy E. King of counsel), attorney for the child.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, SANDRA L. SGROI, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), dated August 13, 2012, as, after a hearing, granted the father's petition to modify a prior order of the same court dated January 11, 2008, so as to award him sole residential custody of the parties' child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
“In order to modify an existing custody or visitation arrangement, there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child” (Matter of Davis v. Pignataro, 97 A.D.3d 677, 677, 948 N.Y.S.2d 378 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Hixenbaugh v. Hixenbaugh, 111 A.D.3d 636, 974 N.Y.S.2d 287). The best interests of the child must be determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171–172, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;Matter of Quintanilla v. Morales, 110 A.D.3d 1081, 974 N.Y.S.2d 261). The credibility findings of the Family Court will be accorded great weight and its determinations regarding custody will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Felty v. Felty, 108 A.D.3d 705, 707, 969 N.Y.S.2d 557;Matter of Haimovici v. Haimovici, 73 A.D.3d 1058, 899 N.Y.S.2d 898).
Here, the Family Court properly considered the totality of the circumstances, and its determination that there had been a sufficient change in circumstances requiring a change in residential custody to protect the best interests of the subject child is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Brown v. Brown, 88 A.D.3d 1174, 931 N.Y.S.2d 764;Matter of Hissam v. Hissam, 84 A.D.3d 1513, 1514, 923 N.Y.S.2d 757). Accordingly, the court's determination will not be disturbed ( see Matter of Quintanilla v. Morales, 110 A.D.3d 1081, 974 N.Y.S.2d 261;Matter of Hixenbaugh v. Hixenbaugh, 111 A.D.3d 636, 974 N.Y.S.2d 287).
The mother's remaining contention is without merit.