Reyes v. Alvarado

50 A.D.3d 1152, 856 N.Y.S.2d 489
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 29, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 1152 (Reyes v. Alvarado) 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
Reyes v. Alvarado, 50 A.D.3d 1152, 856 N.Y.S.2d 489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In related child custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Boggio, R.), dated April 23, 2007, as denied that branch of his petition which, in effect, was for a change of custody of the parties’ children from the mother to him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“Custody determinations are ordinarily a matter of discretion for the hearing court, whose determination will not be set aside on appeal unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Ortiz v Maharaj, 8 AD3d 574, 574 [2004]). Here, contrary to the father’s contention, there was such a basis for the Family Court’s denial of that branch of his petition which, in effect, was for a change of custody of the parties’ children to him. In determining custody, the best interests of the children are paramount (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-174 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94 [1982]) and a change should be made only if the totality of the circumstances warrants a modification of the existing custody arrangement (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 171-174; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d at 94). The evidence in the record amply supported the Family Court’s determination that the circumstances did not warrant a modification.

The father’s remaining contention is without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gant v. Chambliss
86 A.D.3d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Ruggiero v. Noe
77 A.D.3d 959 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Watson v. Smith
52 A.D.3d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 A.D.3d 1152, 856 N.Y.S.2d 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reyes-v-alvarado-nyappdiv-2008.