Opinion
2013-07286, 2014-01624, 2014-01944, 2014-01948, (Docket No. V-6746-10)
06-03-2015
In the Matter of Eileen D'AMICO, respondent, v. Christopher CORRADO, appellant.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven Feldman of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Diane C. Carroll, P.C., Melville, N.Y., for respondent. Paraskevi Zarkadas, Centereach, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Law Office of Diane C. Carroll, P.C., Melville, N.Y., for respondent.
Paraskevi Zarkadas, Centereach, N.Y., attorney for the child.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion Appeals from three orders of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Bernard Cheng, J.), dated June 19, 2013, January 9, 2014, and January 30, 2014, respectively, and an order of that court (David Fruendlich, J.), dated November 26, 2013. The order dated June 19, 2013, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the mother's petition to modify a stipulation of settlement dated October 13, 2010, so as to award her sole custody of the subject child, with visitation to the father. The order dated November 26, 2013, in effect, dismissed the father's petition to hold the mother in contempt for violating the visitation provisions of the order dated June 19, 2013. The order dated January 9, 2014, in effect, dismissed the father's separate petition to hold the mother in contempt for violating the visitation provisions of the order dated June 19, 2013. The order dated January 30, 2014, after a hearing, dismissed the father's separate petitions to hold the mother in contempt for violating the visitation provisions of the order dated June 19, 2013.
ORDERED that the appeals from the orders dated November 26, 2013, and January 9, 2014, are dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the orders dated June 19, 2013, and January 30, 2014, are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeals from the orders dated November 26, 2013, and January 9, 2014, must be dismissed as abandoned, as the father's brief does not seek reversal or modification of any portion of those orders (see Matter of Pepe v. Pepe, 124 A.D.3d 898, 998 N.Y.S.2d 897 ).“A party seeking the modification of an existing court-sanctioned child custody arrangement has the burden of demonstrating that circumstances have changed since the initial custody determination to the extent that modification is necessary to insure the child's best interests” (Matter of O'Connor v. Klotz, 124 A.D.3d 666, 666, 1 N.Y.S.3d 350 ; see Matter of Bugalla v. Calcagno, 118 A.D.3d 871, 871, 987 N.Y.S.2d 625 ; see Anonymous 2011–1 v. Anonymous 2011–2, 102 A.D.3d 640, 641, 958 N.Y.S.2d 181 ; Matter of Gaudette v. Gaudette, 262 A.D.2d 804, 805, 691 N.Y.S.2d 681 ). “The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances” (McCance v. DeWitt, 118 A.D.3d 759, 759, 987 N.Y.S.2d 174 ; see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ). “As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court's findings in connection with these issues should not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Halioris v. Halioris, 126 A.D.3d 973, 974, 6 N.Y.S.3d 267 ; see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 173–174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ).
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the mother's petition to modify the parties' stipulation of settlement dated October 13, 2010, pursuant to which the parties agreed to have joint custody of the subject child, so as to award her sole custody of the child. The record demonstrates that the parties' relationship had deteriorated to the point that they could not communicate and rendered them unable to engage in joint decision-making with regard to their child (see Filippi v. Filippi, 118 A.D.3d 939, 988 N.Y.S.2d 264 ; Matter of O'Loughlin v. Sweetland, 98 A.D.3d 983, 951 N.Y.S.2d 160 ). Moreover, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court's determination that it was in the best interests of the child to award sole custody to the mother based upon, inter alia, the father's volatile temper, limited insight into his behavior, and tendency to blame the mother for his strained relationship with the child (see Matter of O'Loughlin v. Sweetland, 98 A.D.3d at 984, 951 N.Y.S.2d 160 ; Matter of Shaw v. Antes, 274 A.D.2d 679, 681, 710 N.Y.S.2d 719 ; Matter of Spencer v. Small, 263 A.D.2d 783, 785, 693 N.Y.S.2d 727 ; Matter of Hotaling v. Hotaling, 249 A.D.2d 707, 708–709, 671 N.Y.S.2d 542 ; Matter of Notley v. Schmeid, 220 A.D.2d 509, 510–511, 632 N.Y.S.2d 195 ).
Furthermore, the father failed to show that the mother violated the visitation provisions of the order dated June 19, 2013, by deliberately frustrating his visitation rights with the child (see Matter of Vasquez v. Powell, 111 A.D.3d 754, 755, 974 N.Y.S.2d 552 ; see generally Matter of Kraemer v. Strand–O'Shea, 66 A.D.3d 901, 886 N.Y.S.2d 641 ).In light of our determination, we need not reach the father's remaining contention.
Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the father's petitions to hold the mother in contempt for violating the visitation provisions of the order dated June 19, 2013.