Adams v. Perryman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Perryman

68 A.D.3d 860, 891 N.Y.2d 131

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 8, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 860 (Adams v. Perryman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Perryman, 68 A.D.3d 860, 891 N.Y.2d 131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

To modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child (see Matter of Zeis v Slater, 57 AD3d 793, 794 [2008]). The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]). Deference should be accorded the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and the hearing court’s custody [861]*861determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Zeis v Slater, 57 AD3d at 794).

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. The mother “presented no evidence of parental alienation that would justify a change in physical custody” (Matter of Roelofsen v Tiberie, 64 AD3d 603, 604 [2009]). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court’s determination (see Matter of Roelofsen v Tiberie, 64 AD3d 603 [2009]; see also Matter of Chase v Matanda-Chase, 41 AD3d 475, 476 [2007]; Matter of Bryant v Nazario, 306 AD2d 529 [2003]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Miller and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

To modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child (see Matter of Zeis v Slater, 57 AD3d 793, 794 [2008]). The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]). Deference should be accorded the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and the hearing court’s custody [861]*861determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Zeis v Slater, 57 AD3d at 794).

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. The mother “presented no evidence of parental alienation that would justify a change in physical custody” (Matter of Roelofsen v Tiberie, 64 AD3d 603, 604 [2009]). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court’s determination (see Matter of Roelofsen v Tiberie, 64 AD3d 603 [2009]; see also Matter of Chase v Matanda-Chase, 41 AD3d 475, 476 [2007]; Matter of Bryant v Nazario, 306 AD2d 529 [2003]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Miller and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 860, 891 N.Y.2d 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-perryman-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack