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: Tricia M. Lynch, appellant, v. Vincent Velella, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Vincent Velella, respondent, v Tricia M. Lynch, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Vincent Velella, respondent, v Tricia M. Lynch, appellant. (Proceeding No. 3)
Argued—May 24, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In related custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), entered August 9, 2010, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
“To modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change of circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child,” based on “the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Bonthu v. Bonthu, 67 AD3d 906, 907, citing Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171). As a custody determination depends to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, the character and credibility findings of the Family Court will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Buxenbaum v. Fulmer, 82 AD3d 1223).
Here, the determination of the Family Court that there had been a change of circumstances since the parties entered into their so-ordered agreement as to custody and visitation in August 2007, and that it was in the child's best interests to award sole custody to the father, was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Reed v. Clemons, 79 AD3d 1044). Further, that determination was consistent with the recommendation of the court-appointed forensic evaluator, and the position of the attorney for the child, which are entitled to some weight (see Matter of Caravella v. Toale, 78 AD3d 828; Matter of Verret v. Verret, 37 AD3d 479, 481).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, BELEN and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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: 2010–08253 (Docket Nos. V–01672–06 /08C, V–01672–06 /08D, V–01672–06 /08E)
Decided: June 21, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)