Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: JOSHUA C. MOORE, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. DESIREE MOORE, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JEFFREY D. OSHLAG, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, BATAVIA, FOR NICHOLAS M. AND CLARISSA M.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother contends on appeal that Family Court erred in granting the petition in which petitioner father sought sole physical custody of the parties' children. We affirm. The parties had joint custody of the children with primary physical custody with the mother since October 2004 pursuant to an order entered upon the consent of the parties. It is well settled that “[a] party seeking a change in an established custody arrangement must show a change in circumstances [that] reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest[s] of the child” (Matter of Dormio v. Mahoney, _ AD3d _, _ [Oct. 8, 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Perry v. Korman, 63 AD3d 1564, 1565; Matter of Amy L.M. v. Kevin M.M., 31 AD3d 1224). Here, the father met that burden. It is undisputed that the mother moved four times between 2004 and 2009, as a result of which one of the children attended five different schools over that five-year period. In addition, the mother testified that she was planning another move in the near future, which would require the children to change schools yet again. The court therefore properly determined that there was a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant a review of the existing custody arrangement, and the court also properly determined that it is in the best interests of the children to modify the existing custody arrangement by granting the father sole physical custody of the children (see Matter of Maher v. Maher, 1 AD3d 987, 988-989; cf. Matter of Perry v. Korman, 63 AD3d 1564, 1566-1567). “The determination of the court is entitled to great deference, and where, as here, it is based upon a sound and substantial basis in the record, it will not be disturbed” (Matter of Lewis R.E. v. Deloris A.E., 37 AD3d 1092, 1093).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CAF 09-01265
Decided: November 12, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)