Opinion
2013-08035 Docket Nos. O-7592-10/10A O-7593-10 O-9050-10 O-9050-10/11B O-9050-10/12C V-2188-08/10E V-2188-08/10F V-2188-08/10J V-2188-08/10L V-2188-08/10M V-2188-08/11N V-2188-08/12P V-2188-08/12Q V-2188-08/12R V-7656-13 O-7732-10
05-20-2015
In the Matter of Keisha SKIPPER, appellant, v. Devory PUGH, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Devory Pugh, respondent, v. Keisha Skipper, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2).
Gloria Marchetti–Bruck, Mount Kisco, N.Y., for appellant. Carl D. Birman, Mamaroneck, N.Y., for respondent. Paul D. Stone, P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Gloria Marchetti–Bruck, Mount Kisco, N.Y., for appellant.
Carl D. Birman, Mamaroneck, N.Y., for respondent.
Paul D. Stone, P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y., attorney for the child.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
Opinion Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (David S. Zuckerman, J.), dated July 26, 2013. The order, inter alia, granted, after a hearing, the father's petition to modify a prior order of the same court (Janet Malone, J.) dated April 21, 2009, so as to award him sole custody of the subject child.
ORDERED that the order dated July 26, 2013, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Modification of an existing custody arrangement is warranted when there is a showing by the moving party that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child under the totality of the circumstances (see Family Ct. Act § 652[a] ; Matter of Cannella v. Anthony, 127 A.D.3d 745, 4 N.Y.S.3d 533 ; Matter of Preciado v. Ireland, 125 A.D.3d 662, 2 N.Y.S.3d 594 ; Matter of Florio v. Niven, 123 A.D.3d 708, 709–710, 997 N.Y.S.2d 728 ; Matter of Estevez v. Perez, 123 A.D.3d 707, 998 N.Y.S.2d 413 ).
Custody determinations depend 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 (see Matter of Gribeluk v. Gribeluk, 120 A.D.3d 579, 579, 991 N.Y.S.2d 117 ; Matter of Weiss v. Rosenthal, 120 A.D.3d 505, 989 N.Y.S.2d 909 ; Matter of Eison v. Eison, 119 A.D.3d 861, 861, 989 N.Y.S.2d 383 ; Matter of Jurado v. Jurado, 119 A.D.3d 796, 796, 989 N.Y.S.2d 316 ). Accordingly, where a hearing court has conducted a complete evidentiary hearing, its credibility finding must be accorded great weight, and its award of custody will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Saravia v. Godzieba, 120 A.D.3d 821, 822, 991 N.Y.S.2d 476 ; Matter of Gribeluk v. Gribeluk, 120 A.D.3d at 579, 991 N.Y.S.2d 117 ; Matter of Cruz v. Cruz, 118 A.D.3d 780, 782, 987 N.Y.S.2d 109 ; Matter of Islam v. Lee, 115 A.D.3d 952, 953, 982 N.Y.S.2d 772 ).
Here, the Family Court properly considered the totality of the circumstances and determined that the extreme acrimony between the parties was a change in circumstances warranting a modification of the April 2009 joint custody order (see Matter of Florio v. Niven, 123 A.D.3d at 710, 997 N.Y.S.2d 728 ; Matter of O'Connor v. Klotz, 124 A.D.3d 666, 666, 1 N.Y.S.3d 350 ; cf. Matter of Quezada v. Long, 126 A.D.3d 907, 2 N.Y.S.3d 921 ). Further, the Family Court's determination awarding the father sole custody of the parties' child was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Thomas v. Wong, 127 A.D.3d 769, 7 N.Y.S.3d 220 ; Matter of Cannella v. Anthony, 127 A.D.3d 745, 4 N.Y.S.3d 533 ).
Furthermore, the Family Court's award of supervised visitation and supervised phone calls to the mother is in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Torres v. Ojeda, 108 A.D.3d 570, 571, 968 N.Y.S.2d 191 ). The Family Court also properly directed the mother, as a component of visitation, to participate in both individual and group therapy to improve her parenting skills for the child's benefit (see Matter of Torres v. Ojeda, 108 A.D.3d at 571, 968 N.Y.S.2d 191 ; Matter of Lew v. Lew, 104 A.D.3d 946, 946–947, 961 N.Y.S.2d 579 ).
The mother's contention that the Family Court's order should be reversed because the Family Court failed to set forth sufficient facts to support its determination is without merit. In any event, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court's determination and the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see Matter of Bonet v. Bonet, 121 A.D.3d 978, 995 N.Y.S.2d 122 ; Matter of Deegan v. Deegan, 35 A.D.3d 736, 824 N.Y.S.2d 917 ; Matter of Minas v. Shevlin, 254 A.D.2d 420, 421, 678 N.Y.S.2d 672 ).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.