Matter of Lopez v. Alvarez

132 A.D.3d 766, 17 N.Y.S.3d 658
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 14, 2015
Docket2014-08898
StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 766 (Matter of Lopez v. Alvarez) 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 Lopez v. Alvarez, 132 A.D.3d 766, 17 N.Y.S.3d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Heather P.S. James, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated August 25, 2014. The order, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition to modify an order of that court dated January 5, 2012, so as to award him sole custody of the subject child.

Ordered that the order dated August 25, 2004, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

To modify an existing custody order, 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 Oakley v Cond-Arnold, 130 AD3d 737 [2015]; Matter of Covington v Ray, 130 AD3d 721 [2015]; Matter of Sinnott-Turner v Kolba, 60 AD3d 774 [2009]).

Deference should be accorded to the credibility determinations of the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and the hearing court’s determination should not be set aside unless it lacks sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Doroski v Ashton, 99 AD3d 902, 903 [2012]; Matter of Cadet v Lamour, 86 AD3d 538, 539 [2011]; Trinagel v Boyar, 70 AD3d 816 [2010]; Bobinski v Bobinski, 9 AD3d 441 [2004]). Here, the Family Court’s determination that there had been a change in circumstances based on evidence that the mother had failed to comply with the visitation and communication provisions of the prior court order, and that a transfer of sole custody to the father would be in the child’s best interests, has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Doroski v Ashton, 99 AD3d 902, 903 [2012]; Bobinski v Bobinski, 9 AD3d 441 [2004]).

*767 The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Family Court properly granted the father’s petition to award him sole custody of the parties’ child.

Dillon, J.P., Miller, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Oakley v. Cond-Arnold
130 A.D.3d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Covington v. Ray
130 A.D.3d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Bobinski v. Bobinski
9 A.D.3d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Sinnott-Turner v. Kolba
60 A.D.3d 774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Trinagel v. Boyar
70 A.D.3d 816 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Cadet v. Lamour
86 A.D.3d 538 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Doroski v. Ashton
99 A.D.3d 902 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D.3d 766, 17 N.Y.S.3d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-lopez-v-alvarez-nyappdiv-2015.