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: Betty Nava, appellant, v. Frederick Kinsler, Sr., respondent.
Submitted—June 13, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated June 21, 2009, which, after a hearing, denied her petition to modify an order of the same court dated February 21, 2007, awarding the father residential custody of the subject child upon the parties' consent, so as to award her residential custody of the child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A modification of an existing custody arrangement should be allowed only upon a showing of a sufficient change in circumstances demonstrating a real need for a change of custody in order to insure the child's best interests (see Matter of Manfredo v. Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498, 499; Matter of Shehata v. Shehata, 31 AD3d 773, 773–774). The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171; Matter of Chabotte v. Faella, 77 AD3d 749, 749–750). Although the authority of the Appellate Division in matters of custody is as broad as that of the hearing court (see Matter of Louise E.S. v. W. Stephen S., 64 N.Y.2d 946, 947; Giatras v. Giatras, 202 A.D.2d 389, 390), deference should be accorded the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and the hearing court's custody determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Adams v. Perryman, 68 AD3d 860, 861; cf. Matter of Marrero v. Centeno, 71 AD3d 771, 773; Matter of Larkin v. White, 64 AD3d 707, 708–709; Matter of Volpe v. Volpe, 61 AD3d 691, 692).
Here, the Family Court's determination that the mother failed to satisfy her burden of demonstrating a change of circumstances warranting a change of custody is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Trinagel v. Boyar, 70 AD3d 816, 816; Matter of Adams v. Perryman, 68 AD3d at 861; Matter of Bryant v. Nazario, 306 A.D.2d 529, 529; Matter of Murray v. Hall, 294 A.D.2d 504, 505). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother's petition to modify an order awarding the father residential custody of the subject child upon the parties' consent, so as to award her residential custody of the subject child.
MASTRO, J.P., BELEN, SGROI and MILLER, 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: 2009–06387 (Docket No. V–1399–02)
Decided: June 28, 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)