Matter of Paez v. Bambauer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Paez v. Bambauer

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

DecidedJuly 8, 2026

Docket2025-05704

StatusPublished

This text of Matter of Paez v. Bambauer (Matter of Paez v. Bambauer) 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 Paez v. Bambauer, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

Matter of Paez v Bambauer - 2026 NY Slip Op 04308

skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

Matter of Paez v Bambauer

2026 NY Slip Op 04308

July 8, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

In the Matter of Glenda Paez, appellant,

v

John Peter Bambauer, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of John Peter Bambauer, respondent,

Glenda Paez, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on July 8, 2026

2025-05704, (Docket Nos. V-2882-14/23M, V-2882-14/23N, V-2882-14/24S, V-2882-14/24T)

Mark C. Dillon, J.P.

Linda Christopher

Carl J. Landicino

Phillip Hom, JJ.

Ilene K. Graff, New City, NY, for appellant.

John Peter Bambauer, Nanuet, NY, respondent pro se.

Nicole DiGiacomo, New City, NY, attorney for the child.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Andrea F. Composto, J.), dated May 2, 2025. The order, after a hearing, granted the father's petition, in effect, to modify an order of the same court (Keith J. Cornell, J.) dated October 20, 2021, so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child, with parental access to the mother, and awarded the father sole legal and physical custody of the child, with supervised parental access to the mother.

ORDERED that the order dated May 2, 2025, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father and the mother have one child in common, born in 2014. In November 2015, the Family Court awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody of the child, with parental access to the father. In an order dated October 20, 2021 (hereinafter the 2021 order), the court modified the parental access schedule. In January 2023, the mother filed a petition to modify the 2021 order so as to award the father supervised parental access with the child. In March 2023, the father filed a petition, in effect, to modify the 2021 order so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the child, with parental access to the mother. After a hearing, the court granted the father's petition and awarded the father sole legal and physical custody of the child, with supervised parental access to the mother. The mother appeals.

"In order to modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a subsequent change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests [*2]of the child" (Matter of Jones v Jones, 231 AD3d 829, 830 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "'The paramount concern when making such a determination is the best interests of the child under the totality of the circumstances'" (Matter of Smisek v DeSantis, 239 AD3d 867, 868, quoting Matter of Martinez v Gaddy, 223 AD3d 816, 817). "When deciding whether a modification is in a child's best interests, factors to be considered include the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child, the ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child, the relative fitness of the respective parents, . . . the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent," and "[s]tability and continuity in [the] child's life" (Matter of El-Sayegh v Saadini, 245 AD3d 939, 940 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Martinez v Gaddy, 223 AD3d at 817). "'Inasmuch as a court's custody determination is dependent in large part upon its assessment of the witnesses' credibility and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, the court's custody determination will not be disturbed if supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record'" (Matter of Acevedo v Cassidy, 236 AD3d 645, 647, quoting Matter of Turcios v Cordero, 173 AD3d 1048, 1049).

Here, the Family Court's determination that a change in circumstances existed to warrant modification of custody and parental access is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. Additionally, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination to award sole legal and physical custody of the child to the father. The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated, inter alia, that the mother lacked the insight to perceive how her negative feelings about the father, sometimes expressed in the presence of the child, affected the child, and that awarding the father sole legal and physical custody was in the child's best interests (see Keefer v Keefer, 211 AD3d 828, 832; Matter of Smith v Francis, 206 AD3d 914, 916; Matter of Zeis v Slater, 57 AD3d 793, 794). Moreover, the court's determination that it was in the best interests of the child to limit the mother's parental access to supervised parental access is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Cruz v Williams, 239 AD3d 847; Matter of Chung v Toppin, 209 AD3d 647, 649; Matter of Wagner v Del Valle, 198 AD3d 664). Contrary to the mother's contention, the court properly considered the child's wishes, weighed in light of his age and maturity (see Matter of Baalla v Baalla, 158 AD3d 676, 678).

DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.

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

Matter of Paez v Bambauer - 2026 NY Slip Op 04308

skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

Matter of Paez v Bambauer

2026 NY Slip Op 04308

July 8, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

In the Matter of Glenda Paez, appellant,

v

John Peter Bambauer, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of John Peter Bambauer, respondent,

Glenda Paez, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on July 8, 2026

2025-05704, (Docket Nos. V-2882-14/23M, V-2882-14/23N, V-2882-14/24S, V-2882-14/24T)

Mark C. Dillon, J.P.

Linda Christopher

Carl J. Landicino

Phillip Hom, JJ.

Ilene K. Graff, New City, NY, for appellant.

John Peter Bambauer, Nanuet, NY, respondent pro se.

Nicole DiGiacomo, New City, NY, attorney for the child.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Andrea F. Composto, J.), dated May 2, 2025. The order, after a hearing, granted the father's petition, in effect, to modify an order of the same court (Keith J. Cornell, J.) dated October 20, 2021, so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child, with parental access to the mother, and awarded the father sole legal and physical custody of the child, with supervised parental access to the mother.

ORDERED that the order dated May 2, 2025, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father and the mother have one child in common, born in 2014. In November 2015, the Family Court awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody of the child, with parental access to the father. In an order dated October 20, 2021 (hereinafter the 2021 order), the court modified the parental access schedule. In January 2023, the mother filed a petition to modify the 2021 order so as to award the father supervised parental access with the child. In March 2023, the father filed a petition, in effect, to modify the 2021 order so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the child, with parental access to the mother. After a hearing, the court granted the father's petition and awarded the father sole legal and physical custody of the child, with supervised parental access to the mother. The mother appeals.

"In order to modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a subsequent change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests [*2]of the child" (Matter of Jones v Jones, 231 AD3d 829, 830 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "'The paramount concern when making such a determination is the best interests of the child under the totality of the circumstances'" (Matter of Smisek v DeSantis, 239 AD3d 867, 868, quoting Matter of Martinez v Gaddy, 223 AD3d 816, 817). "When deciding whether a modification is in a child's best interests, factors to be considered include the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child, the ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child, the relative fitness of the respective parents, . . . the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent," and "[s]tability and continuity in [the] child's life" (Matter of El-Sayegh v Saadini, 245 AD3d 939, 940 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Martinez v Gaddy, 223 AD3d at 817). "'Inasmuch as a court's custody determination is dependent in large part upon its assessment of the witnesses' credibility and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, the court's custody determination will not be disturbed if supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record'" (Matter of Acevedo v Cassidy, 236 AD3d 645, 647, quoting Matter of Turcios v Cordero, 173 AD3d 1048, 1049).

Here, the Family Court's determination that a change in circumstances existed to warrant modification of custody and parental access is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. Additionally, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination to award sole legal and physical custody of the child to the father. The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated, inter alia, that the mother lacked the insight to perceive how her negative feelings about the father, sometimes expressed in the presence of the child, affected the child, and that awarding the father sole legal and physical custody was in the child's best interests (see Keefer v Keefer, 211 AD3d 828, 832; Matter of Smith v Francis, 206 AD3d 914, 916; Matter of Zeis v Slater, 57 AD3d 793, 794). Moreover, the court's determination that it was in the best interests of the child to limit the mother's parental access to supervised parental access is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Cruz v Williams, 239 AD3d 847; Matter of Chung v Toppin, 209 AD3d 647, 649; Matter of Wagner v Del Valle, 198 AD3d 664). Contrary to the mother's contention, the court properly considered the child's wishes, weighed in light of his age and maturity (see Matter of Baalla v Baalla, 158 AD3d 676, 678).

DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Matter of Paez v. Bambauer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-paez-v-bambauer-nyappdiv-2026.

Opinion

Matter of Paez v Bambauer

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack