Matter of Mollet v Mollet

Matter of Matter of Mollet v Mollet 2012 NY Slip Op 07114 Decided on October 24, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 24, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.
PETER B. SKELOS
PLUMMER E. LOTT
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
2011-08434
(Docket No. V-23142-09/11C)

[*1]In the Matter of Kiera Mollet, respondent,

v

Jason Mollet, appellant.




Susan A. DeNatale, Mastic, N.Y., for appellant.
Terry R. Woodard, Central Islip, N.Y., for respondent.
Diane B. Groom, Central Islip, N.Y., attorney for the child.


DECISION & ORDER

In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, in effect, to modify a prior custody arrangement set forth in an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (James, Ct. Attny. Ref.), dated May 26, 2010, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated August 18, 2011, as, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for sole custody of the subject child.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

" In order to modify an existing 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'" (Matter of Francois v Grimm, 84 AD3d 1082, quoting Matter of Peralta v Irrizary, 76 AD3d 561, 562; see Family Ct Act § 652). "The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances" (Matter of Garcia v Fountain, 82 AD3d 979, 980).

Here, the Family Court's award of sole legal and physical custody of the subject child to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see Matter of McDonough v McDonough, 73 AD3d 1067, 1068; Matter of Tercjak V Tercjak, 49 AD3d 772).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
ENG, P.J., SKELOS, LOTT and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court