IN RE: VERONICA A.M. WEBB (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent father appeals from an order that modified the parties’ prior order of custody and parenting time by, inter alia, granting petitioner mother primary physical custody of the subject child.

We reject the father's contention that the mother failed to meet her burden of establishing “a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether a change in custody is in the best interests of the child[ ]” (Matter of Johnson v Johnson [appeal No. 2], 209 AD3d 1314, 1315 [4th Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Torres v Burchell, 228 AD3d 1303, 1303 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 908 [2024]). The evidence at the hearing established that the father used excessive corporal punishment (see generally Matter of Farner v Farner, 152 AD3d 1212, 1215 [4th Dept 2017]), that he failed to make appropriate medical and dental arrangements for the child (see Matter of Kinne v Byrd, 171 AD3d 1495, 1496 [4th Dept 2019]), and that he refused to discuss issues with the mother (see Matter of Cheung v Tran, 247 AD3d 1618, 1619 [4th Dept 2026], lv denied 45 NY3d 907 [2026]).

Affording “great deference to the determination of the hearing court with its superior ability to evaluate the credibility of the testifying witnesses” (Matter of Miner v Torres, 179 AD3d 1490, 1491 [4th Dept 2020]), we further conclude that, contrary to the father's contention, a sound and substantial basis in the record supports the court's determination that an award of primary physical custody of the child to the mother is in the child's best interests (see Torres, 228 AD3d at 1303-1304; see generally Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174 [1982]; Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 210-211 [4th Dept 1992]).

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court