Bacchi v. Clancy

101 A.D.3d 993, 957 N.Y.2d 242
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 19, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 101 A.D.3d 993 (Bacchi v. Clancy) 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
Bacchi v. Clancy, 101 A.D.3d 993, 957 N.Y.2d 242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

“ ‘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’ ” (Sano v Sano, 98 AD3d 659, 659 [2012], quoting Matter of Nava v Kinsler, 85 AD3d 1186, 1186 [2011]; see Matter of Kimberly A.H. v Perez, 99 AD3d 903 [2012]). The determination of a child’s best interests requires a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). In addition, inasmuch as custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court’s determination should be disturbed only if it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173-174; Matter of Doroski v Ashton, 99 AD3d 902 [2012]). Here, the Family Court’s determination that there had been a sufficient change in circumstances requiring a change in custody has a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, should not be disturbed (see Matter of Diaz v Diaz, 97 AD3d 747, 747 [2012]).

The father’s remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Solomon v. Fishman
2020 NY Slip Op 1352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Acosta v. Melendez
2020 NY Slip Op 409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Rabinowich v. Rabinowich
2019 NY Slip Op 9271 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Lewis-Daniel v. Daniel
2019 NY Slip Op 7398 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Errante v. Murry
2019 NY Slip Op 3333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Scheiner v. Henig
2017 NY Slip Op 8000 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Bondarev v. Bondarev
2017 NY Slip Op 5415 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Salmela v. Goodwin
111 A.D.3d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 A.D.3d 993, 957 N.Y.2d 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bacchi-v-clancy-nyappdiv-2012.