Opinion
2014-04-23
In the Matter of Krystin HOLMES, petitioner-respondent, v. Barbara HOLMES, respondent, Gustavo Gomez, appellant.
Azra Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven Feldman of counsel), for appellant. Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (John B. Belmonte of counsel), attorney for the children.
Azra Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven Feldman of counsel), for appellant. Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (John B. Belmonte of counsel), attorney for the children.
In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Rouse, J.), dated February 14, 2013, which, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition to modify the visitation provisions of an order of the same court (Burke, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated March 21, 2012, entered upon the consent of the parties.
ORDERED that the order dated February 14, 2013, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In order to modify an existing court-sanctioned custody or visitation arrangement, “there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child[ren]” (Matter of Angelina L.C. [Michael C.-Patricia H.-C.], 110 A.D.3d 793, 795, 973 N.Y.S.2d 668 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Family Ct. Act § 467[b][ii]; Matter of Wilson v. McGlinchey, 2 N.Y.3d 375, 380, 779 N.Y.S.2d 159, 811 N.E.2d 526;Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;Matter of James M. v. Kevin M., 99 A.D.3d 911, 952 N.Y.S.2d 257;Matter of McVey v. Barnett, 107 A.D.3d 808, 808, 967 N.Y.S.2d 403). The best interests of the children are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;Matter of Griffin v. Nikiea Moore–James, 104 A.D.3d 685, 960 N.Y.S.2d 222;Matter of Sidorowicz v. Sidorowicz, 101 A.D.3d 737, 955 N.Y.S.2d 194). Since any visitation determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of O'Loughlin v. Sweetland, 98 A.D.3d 983, 984, 951;Matter of Skeete v. Hamilton, 78 A.D.3d 1187, 1188, 911 N.Y.S.2d 667;Matter of Nell v. Nell, 87 A.D.3d 541, 542, 928 N.Y.S.2d 312). Here, the Family Court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, will not be disturbed. ENG, P.J., DILLON, MALTESE and DUFFY, JJ., concur.