Opinion
2018–01879 2018–01880 Docket Nos. V–22302–11/15D/16E
03-20-2019
In the Matter of Luis HERRANZ, appellant, v. Sandra LONGA, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Sandra Longa, respondent, v. Luis Herranz, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings–on–Hudson, NY, for appellant. Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, NY, attorney for respondent. Toba Beth Stutz, Jamaica, NY, attorney for the child.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings–on–Hudson, NY, for appellant.
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, NY, attorney for respondent.
Toba Beth Stutz, Jamaica, NY, attorney for the child.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RUTH C. BALKIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERIn related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County (Ashley Black, Ct. Atty. Ref.), both dated January 3, 2018. The first order dated January 3, 2018, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, granted, in part, the mother's petition to modify a prior order of custody of the same court (Mildred T. Negron, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated March 20, 2015. The second order dated January 3, 2018, set forth the terms of the new custody arrangement.
ORDERED that the first order dated January 3, 2018, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the second order dated January 3, 2018, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"A court may modify an order awarding custody and visitation upon a showing that there has been a subsequent change of circumstances and that modification is in the best interests of the child" ( Matter of Sinnott–Turner v. Kolba, 60 A.D.3d 774, 775, 875 N.Y.S.2d 512 ; see Matter of Stones v. VanDenberge, 167 A.D.3d 909, 90 N.Y.S.3d 244 ; Matter of McKenzie v. Williams, 165 A.D.3d 673, 674, 85 N.Y.S.3d 205 ). "The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances" ( Matter of McKenzie v. Williams, 165 A.D.3d at 674, 85 N.Y.S.3d 205 ; see Matter of Mack v. Kass, 115 A.D.3d 748, 749, 981 N.Y.S.2d 593 ). "Custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, and therefore, deference is accorded to the trial court's findings in this regard" ( Matter of McKenzie v. Williams, 165 A.D.3d at 674, 85 N.Y.S.3d 205 ; see Matter of Gooler v. Gooler, 107 A.D.3d 712, 712, 966 N.Y.S.2d 208 ). Accordingly, custody determinations "will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record" ( Matter of McKenzie v. Williams, 165 A.D.3d at 674, 85 N.Y.S.3d 205 ; see Matter of Gooler v. Gooler, 107 A.D.3d at 712, 966 N.Y.S.2d 208 ). Here, the Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served by modifying the prior custody order has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., BALKIN, MILLER and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.