IN RE: PETER K. (2025)

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jessica Forman, R.), entered on or about December 10, 2024, which, after a hearing, dismissed petitioner father's petition for modification of a custody agreement with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support Family Court's determination that the father did not allege a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification of the existing custody agreement (see Matter of Adama D. v. Mariam D., 176 A.D.3d 607, 607, 109 N.Y.S.3d 640 [1st Dept. 2019]).  While the father's employment no longer required travel and long work hours, there is no indication that the custody agreement limited his parenting time to accommodate his prior work schedule (see Matter of Mathewson v. Sessler, 94 A.D.3d 1487, 1489, 943 N.Y.S.2d 326 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 815, 2012 WL 5258829 [2012];  see also Matter of Kenneth N. v. Elizabeth O., 209 A.D.3d 1133, 1134, 175 N.Y.S.3d 783 [3d Dept. 2022]).  The father acknowledged that the custody agreement gave him weekly parenting time, along with parenting time during the Jewish holidays, Thanksgiving break, spring break, and summer break (see Steck v. Steck, 307 A.D.2d 819, 820, 763 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept. 2003]).

The father's contention that the child's school had changed its holiday schedule is also insufficient to warrant a modification, where the alleged change did not affect the existing division of holidays (see e.g. Matter of Steven E. v. Angella E., 183 A.D.3d 546, 546, 122 N.Y.S.3d 889 [1st Dept. 2020]).  The father also argued that the child, and his paternal grandparents, had advanced in age, without demonstrating how that inevitable change affected the best interests of the child in a manner that warranted alteration of the existing custody agreement (cf.  Miller v. Shaw, 160 A.D.3d 743, 744, 74 N.Y.S.3d 70 [2d Dept. 2022]).