Matter of Branch v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Branch v. Clark

142 A.D.3d 1165, 37 N.Y.S.3d 910

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2016

Docket2015-09384

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.D.3d 1165 (Matter of Branch v. Clark) 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

Matter of Branch v. Clark, 142 A.D.3d 1165, 37 N.Y.S.3d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Dean T. Kusakabe, J.), dated September 21, 2015. The order, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition, in effect, to modify a prior order of that court (Bernard J. *1166 Graham, J.) dated June 21, 2010, and a second prior order of that court (Denise M. Valme-Lundy, Ct. Atty. Ref.) dated July 11, 2012, so as to award him sole custody of the subject child, and denied the mother’s petition, in effect, to modify those prior orders so as to award her sole custody of the child.

Ordered that the order dated September 21, 2015, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties have one child together, a daughter born in October 2008. In an order dated June 21, 2010, the Family Court awarded the mother and the father joint legal and physical custody of the child. In an order dated July 11, 2012, the court modified the June 2010 order by setting forth a detailed visitation schedule. Thereafter, the mother and the father each petitioned, in effect, to modify the June 2010 and July 2012 orders so as to award each of them sole custody of the child. In an order dated September 21, 2015, the court granted the father’s petition and denied the mother’s petition. The mother appeals.

To warrant modification of an existing child custody order, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances, such that the modification is required to protect the best interests of the child (see Matter of Pena v Lopez, 140 AD3d 967, 968 [2016]; Matter of Gelfarb v Gelfarb, 133 AD3d 598, 599 [2015]). “In determining the best interests of the child, the court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Murphy v Lewis, 106 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2013]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). “Since custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Boodhoo v Rampersaud, 122 AD3d 624, 625 [2014]; see Matter of Guiracochav Amaro, 122AD3d 632, 633 [2014]).

Contrary to the mother’s contention, there was sufficient evidence in the hearing record both to demonstrate the requisite change in circumstances and to support the Family Court’s determination that an award of sole custody to the father would be in the child’s best interests. The custody determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and we discern no basis for disturbing it (see Matter of Boodhoo v Rampersaud, 122 AD3d at 625).

Rivera, J.R, Chambers, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Dean T. Kusakabe, J.), dated September 21, 2015. The order, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition, in effect, to modify a prior order of that court (Bernard J. *1166 Graham, J.) dated June 21, 2010, and a second prior order of that court (Denise M. Valme-Lundy, Ct. Atty. Ref.) dated July 11, 2012, so as to award him sole custody of the subject child, and denied the mother’s petition, in effect, to modify those prior orders so as to award her sole custody of the child.

Ordered that the order dated September 21, 2015, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties have one child together, a daughter born in October 2008. In an order dated June 21, 2010, the Family Court awarded the mother and the father joint legal and physical custody of the child. In an order dated July 11, 2012, the court modified the June 2010 order by setting forth a detailed visitation schedule. Thereafter, the mother and the father each petitioned, in effect, to modify the June 2010 and July 2012 orders so as to award each of them sole custody of the child. In an order dated September 21, 2015, the court granted the father’s petition and denied the mother’s petition. The mother appeals.

To warrant modification of an existing child custody order, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances, such that the modification is required to protect the best interests of the child (see Matter of Pena v Lopez, 140 AD3d 967, 968 [2016]; Matter of Gelfarb v Gelfarb, 133 AD3d 598, 599 [2015]). “In determining the best interests of the child, the court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Murphy v Lewis, 106 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2013]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). “Since custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Boodhoo v Rampersaud, 122 AD3d 624, 625 [2014]; see Matter of Guiracochav Amaro, 122AD3d 632, 633 [2014]).

Contrary to the mother’s contention, there was sufficient evidence in the hearing record both to demonstrate the requisite change in circumstances and to support the Family Court’s determination that an award of sole custody to the father would be in the child’s best interests. The custody determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and we discern no basis for disturbing it (see Matter of Boodhoo v Rampersaud, 122 AD3d at 625).

Rivera, J.R, Chambers, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 1165, 37 N.Y.S.3d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-branch-v-clark-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack