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: John F. GREENE, IV, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Brooke D. KRANOCK, Respondent–Appellant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted the petition of petitioner father seeking to modify the existing custody order by awarding him primary physical placement of the subject child. Contrary to the mother's contention, the father met his burden of establishing a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether a modification of the custody arrangement is in the best interests of the child (see generally Matter of Peay v. Peay, 156 A.D.3d 1358, 1360, 67 N.Y.S.3d 751 [4th Dept. 2017] ). Although Family Court did not make an express finding of a change in circumstances, “we have the authority to ‘review the record to ascertain whether the requisite change in circumstances existed’ ” (Matter of Allen v. Boswell, 149 A.D.3d 1528, 1528, 53 N.Y.S.3d 432 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 902, 67 N.Y.S.3d 127, 89 N.E.3d 517 [2017] ). We conclude that there was a change in circumstances based on the undisputed evidence at the hearing of domestic violence in the mother's household (see id. at 1528–1529, 53 N.Y.S.3d 432; Matter of Belcher v. Morgado, 147 A.D.3d 1335, 1336, 46 N.Y.S.3d 737 [4th Dept. 2017] ), the mother's frequent changes of residence (see Matter of Siler v. Wright, 64 A.D.3d 926, 928–929, 882 N.Y.S.2d 574 [3d Dept. 2009]; Matter of Green v. Perry, 18 A.D.3d 923, 924, 794 N.Y.S.2d 495 [3d Dept. 2005] ), and the child's repeated changes of school (see Matter of Stanton v. Kelso, 148 A.D.3d 1809, 1810, 50 N.Y.S.3d 785 [4th Dept. 2017] ). Contrary to the mother's further contention, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination that awarding the father primary physical placement of the child is in the child's best interests (see generally Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171–174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
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: 535
Decided: April 27, 2018
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)