IN RE: Raad EL–SAYEGH (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Elizabeth L. Fassler, J.), dated December 20, 2024.  The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, granted the father's petition to modify an order of custody of the same court dated March 2, 2023, entered upon consent, so as to award him sole legal and residential custody of the parties’ child.

ORDERED that the order dated December 20, 2024, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The parties, who were never married to each other, are the parents of one child, born in 2017.  In an order of custody dated March 2, 2023 (hereinafter the March 2023 order), entered upon the parties’ consent, the Family Court, inter alia, awarded the parties joint legal custody of the child, with primary physical custody to the mother and parental access to the father.  In June 2023, the father filed a petition to modify the March 2023 order so as to award him sole legal and residential custody of the child.  In an order dated December 20, 2024, after a hearing, the court, among other things, granted the father's petition.  The mother appeals.

“In order to modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a subsequent change in circumstances so that modification is required to protect the best interest of the child” (Pettei v. Pettei, 207 A.D.3d 670, 671, 171 N.Y.S.3d 582 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Mahoney v. Hughes, 227 A.D.3d 908, 909, 212 N.Y.S.3d 145).  “The best interests of the child must be determined by reviewing the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Saliba v. Melvin, 227 A.D.3d 913, 914, 212 N.Y.S.3d 368;  see Matter of Dapp v. Shtaynberger, 240 A.D.3d 891, 892, 236 N.Y.S.3d 314).  “When deciding whether a modification is in a child's best interests, factors to be considered include the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child, the ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child, the relative fitness of the respective parents, ․ the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent,” and “[s]tability and continuity in [the] child's life” (Matter of Reggie P. v. Heather D., 239 A.D.3d 861, 862, 234 N.Y.S.3d 291 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Brathwaite v. Lightsey, 242 A.D.3d 883, 884, 241 N.Y.S.3d 786).  “The existence or absence of any one factor in determining custody cannot be determinative on appellate review since the court is to consider the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Cooper v. Nicholson, 167 A.D.3d 602, 604, 89 N.Y.S.3d 243;  see Matter of Narine v. Singh, 229 A.D.3d 700, 701, 216 N.Y.S.3d 38).  However, where “a court's custody determination is dependent in large part upon its assessment of the witnesses’ credibility and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, the court's custody determination will not be disturbed if supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Acevedo v. Cassidy, 236 A.D.3d 645, 647, 228 N.Y.S.3d 654 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of McCook v. Delbrune, 243 A.D.3d 791, 793, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––).

Here, the parties agreed that there had been a change in circumstances.  The Family Court's determination that it was in the child's best interests to grant the father's petition to modify the March 2023 order so as to award him sole legal and residential custody of the child has a sound and substantial basis in the record and, therefore, should not be disturbed (see Matter of Dapp v. Shtaynberger, 240 A.D.3d at 892, 236 N.Y.S.3d 314;  Matter of Quattrochi v. Negri, 238 A.D.3d 767, 768, 231 N.Y.S.3d 645).

DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.