Matter of Liza R. v Lin F.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Liza R. v Lin F. 2013 NY Slip Op 06777 Decided on October 17, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 17, 2013
Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, Clark, JJ. 10777 &
4854

[*1]In re Liza R., Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Lin F., Respondent-Respondent.




Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant.
Geanine Towers, P.C., Brooklyn (Geanine Towers of counsel),
attorney for the child.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about July 10, 2012, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the mother's petition to modify a custody order with respect to the parties' youngest child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found, after a full evidentiary hearing at which both parents testified, that there was an insufficient change in circumstances to warrant a modification of the custody order, and that such a change was not in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Maureen H. v Samuel G., 104 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2013]). The record shows that the father obtained counseling and tutoring for the child to improve his behavior and academic performance, and that he worked with the child on his homework. By contrast, the mother failed to demonstrate that the child's problems in school would be ameliorated if custody were transferred to her. The child's stated preference is not determinative (see Matter of Louise E.S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946, 947 [1985]), and a forensic examination and report is not necessary.

We have considered the appealing party's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. [*2]

M-4854 -In re Liza R. v Lin F. Motion seeking interview with child and related relief denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 17, 2013

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.