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: HOWARD G. MESSIMORE, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. STACY M. MESSIMORE, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SUSAN A. SOVIE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, WATERTOWN, FOR NATALEIGH M.M.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner father commenced this proceeding seeking to modify the existing custody provisions in the judgment of divorce, which was entered while he was deployed overseas with the United States Army, by awarding him primary physical custody of the parties' child. We agree with the father that his return from deployment constituted a change in circumstances warranting review of the existing custody arrangement (see Family Ct Act § 651[f][3] ). Contrary to the father's contention, however, we conclude that Family Court did undertake such a review in light of the change in circumstances. The court held an evidentiary hearing, during which witnesses were called by both parties, conducted an in camera interview with the parties' child and thereafter made a determination based upon the best interests of the child (cf. Matter of Hughes v. Davis, 68 AD3d 1674). Contrary to the further contention of the father, we conclude that the court's determination that the best interests of the child are served by continuing primary physical custody with respondent mother is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of McLeod v. McLeod, 59 AD3d 1011).
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 10–01945
Decided: November 18, 2011
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)