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: PAUL F. GUGINO, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. DIANA TSVASMAN, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TANYA J. CONLEY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, ROCHESTER.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner father appeals from an order denying his petition, following a hearing, seeking to modify a prior custody order that granted sole custody of the parties' daughter to respondent mother. It is axiomatic that the 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 Moore v. Moore, 78 AD3d 1630, 1630, lv denied 16 NY3d 704 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Maher v. Maher, 1 AD3d 987, 988). Family Court did not specifically address whether the father established a change of circumstances; however its determination that the father failed to establish that sole custody should be granted to him, rather than to the mother, “is the product of ‘careful weighing of [the] appropriate factors' ․, and it has a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of McLeod v. McLeod, 59 AD3d 1011, 1011; see Fox v. Fox, 177 A.D.2d 209, 211). We reject the father's contention that the court erred in referencing in its decision information that it obtained in the hearing it conducted two years earlier, inasmuch as a court has the power to take judicial notice of its own prior proceedings (see Matter of A.R., 309 A.D.2d 1153, 1153).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CAF 13–02118
Decided: June 13, 2014
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)