Betro v. Carbone

50 A.D.3d 1583, 857 N.Y.S.2d 405
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 25, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 1583 (Betro v. Carbone) 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
Betro v. Carbone, 50 A.D.3d 1583, 857 N.Y.S.2d 405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

[1584]*1584Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Brian M. Miga, J.), entered December 30, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, granted the cross petition of respondent and awarded her sole custody of the parties’ children.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly denied petitioner father’s petition seeking to modify the existing custody order by awarding primary physical custody of the parties’ children to the father, and the court properly granted the cross petition of respondent mother seeking to modify the order by awarding sole custody of the children to the mother. Addressing first the cross petition, we reject the contention of the Law Guardian that the court erred in modifying the existing joint custody arrangement. It is well settled that “joint custody is inappropriate [when] the parties have an acrimonious relationship and are unable to communicate with each other in a civil manner” (Matter of Christopher J.S. v Colleen A.B., 43 AD3d 1350, 1350-1351 [2007]), and this is such a case. We further conclude with respect to the father’s petition seeking primary physical custody of the children that the father failed to establish a change in circumstances reflecting a real need for change in the primary physical residence of the children to ensure that their best interests were served (see Matter of James D. v Tammy W., 45 AD3d 1358 [2007]). Although one of the children expressed a desire to live with the father, the “established custodial arrangement should not be changed solely to accommodate the desires of the child” (Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211 [1992]; see Matter of Johnston v Bridenbecker, 300 AD2d 1062 [2002]). We have considered the Law Guardian’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Centra, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of William F.G. v. Lisa M.B.
2019 NY Slip Op 774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Loveland v. Barnes
2018 NY Slip Op 3283 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
HILL, DANIEL T. v. TROJNOR, VICKI L.
137 A.D.3d 1671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Porter v. Nesbitt
74 A.D.3d 1786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Ingersoll v. Platt
72 A.D.3d 1560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Graham v. Thering
55 A.D.3d 1319 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 A.D.3d 1583, 857 N.Y.S.2d 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/betro-v-carbone-nyappdiv-2008.