HOWDEN, CURTIS P. v. KEELER, NAOMI R.

85 A.D.3d 1561, 924 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2011 NY Slip Op 04844
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 10, 2011
DocketCAF 09-02206
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 85 A.D.3d 1561 (HOWDEN, CURTIS P. v. KEELER, NAOMI R.) 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
HOWDEN, CURTIS P. v. KEELER, NAOMI R., 85 A.D.3d 1561, 924 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2011 NY Slip Op 04844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Allegany County (Lynn L. Hartley, J.H.O.), entered March 16, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, granted sole custody of the parties’ child to petitioner.

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

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order granting the father’s petition seeking sole custody of the parties’ child. Contrary to the mother’s contention, Family Court properly concluded that the father “ ‘ma[de] a sufficient evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances to require a hearing on the issue whether the existing custody order should be modified’ ” (Matter of Hughes v Davis, 68 AD3d 1674, 1675 [2009]). Here, the mother admitted that she withheld the child from the father, and the record establishes that she made numerous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father (see e.g. Matter of Tyrone W. v Dawn M.P., 27 AD3d 1147 [2006], lv *1562 denied 7 NY3d 705 [2006]; Matter of Darla N. v Christine N. [appeal No. 2], 289 AD2d 1012 [2001]).

We further conclude that the court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the child to award the father sole custody. The parties stipulated to the prior custody arrangement approximately two years and four months prior to the commencement of this proceeding. Although “a long-term custodial arrangement established by agreement should [continue] ‘unless it is demonstrated that the custodial parent is unfit or perhaps less fit’ ” (Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211 [1992]), “ ‘[a] concerted effort by one parent to interfere with the other parent’s contact with the child is so inimical to the best interests of the child ... as to, per se, raise a strong probability that [the interfering parent] is unfit to act as custodial parent’ ” (Matter of Amanda B. v Anthony B., 13 AD3d 1126, 1127 [2004]). In addition to the mother’s admissions with respect to, inter alia, her unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father, the record establishes that the mother subjected the child to unnecessary medical examinations. Thus, the court’s custody determination, “based upon [its] first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of Bryan K.B. v Destiny S.B., 43 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]), has a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed. Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Fowler v. Rothman
2021 NY Slip Op 05436 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Ballard v. Piston
2019 NY Slip Op 9145 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
AMRANE, SOUAD v. BELKHIR, LOTFI
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Amrane v. Belkhir
141 A.D.3d 1074 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
A., ISOBELLA, MTR. OF
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Charles J.S. v. Anna W.
136 A.D.3d 1317 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
COLE, HEATHER A. v. NOFRI, MICHAEL JAMES
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Cole v. Nofri
107 A.D.3d 1510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
HOWELL, PATRICK A. v. LOVELL, FAATIMAH A.
103 A.D.3d 1229 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
FOX, JAMES M. v. FOX, ELAINE H.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Fox v. Fox
93 A.D.3d 1224 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
ORZECH, PATRICIA v. NIKIEL, GARY A.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Orzech v. Nikiel
91 A.D.3d 1305 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
MARINO, JOHN C. v. MARINO, SHERRY L.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
Marino v. Marino
90 A.D.3d 1694 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 A.D.3d 1561, 924 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2011 NY Slip Op 04844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howden-curtis-p-v-keeler-naomi-r-nyappdiv-2011.