IN RE: KRISTIN S. BUCHHOLZ (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, petitioner mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied and dismissed her petition for modification of the parties’ prior order of custody and visitation. We affirm.

Initially, we note that to the extent that the mother's contentions on appeal relate to the parties’ oldest child, those contentions are not properly before us inasmuch as the mother withdrew her request to modify the custody and visitation arrangements with respect to that child during the hearing (see Matter of Michael F. v Cerise S., 224 AD2d 692, 692 [2d Dept 1996]).

We reject the mother's contention that Family Court's best interests determination with respect to the parties’ younger child lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record. In determining whether a requested custody modification is in the best interests of a child, “the court must consider all factors that could impact the best interests of the child, including the existing custody arrangement, the current home environment, the financial status of the parties, the ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development and the wishes of the child” (Matter of Marino v Marino, 90 AD3d 1694, 1695 [4th Dept 2011]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172-173 [1982]; Matter of Beman v Hand, 243 AD3d 1293, 1294 [4th Dept 2025]). “[A] court's determination regarding custody [and visitation issues], based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record” (Matter of DeVore v O’Harra-Gardner, 177 AD3d 1264, 1266 [4th Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Beman, 243 AD3d at 1294; Matter of Thayer v Thayer, 67 AD3d 1358, 1359 [4th Dept 2009]). Here, we perceive no basis to disturb the court's credibility assessments and factual findings, and we conclude that, contrary to the mother's contention, a sound and substantial basis in the record supports the court's determination that the mother failed to establish that the requested modification would be in the best interests of the child (see Beman, 243 AD3d at 1294; Matter of Doner v Flora, 229 AD3d 1158, 1158 [4th Dept 2024]; see generally Matter of Moses v Williams, 138 AD3d 861, 862 [2d Dept 2016]).

The mother's contention that the court was biased against her is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as she failed to make a motion for the court to recuse itself (see Matter of Hoover v Ester, 248 AD3d 1755, 1757 [4th Dept 2026]; Matter of Tuttle v Worthington, 240 AD3d 1297, 1298 [4th Dept 2025]; Matter of Shonyo v Shonyo, 151 AD3d 1595, 1596 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 901 [2017]).

Entered: October 9, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court