Matter of Radigan v Kidney

Matter of Radigan v Kidney 2013 NY Slip Op 03683 Decided on May 22, 2013 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 May 22, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
SANDRA L. SGROI
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2012-04522
(Docket Nos. V-3914/3915-10/10A, V-4930/4931-10/10A)

[*1]In the Matter of Michael Daniel Radigan, appellant,

v

Carla Ann Kidney, formerly known as Carla Ann Radigan, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1)



In the Matter of Carla Ann Kidney, formerly known as Carla Ann Radigan, respondent,

v

Michael Daniel Radigan, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) Stanley M. Ackert III, Claverack, N.Y., for appellant. Victoria B. Campbell, P.C., Port Jervis, N.Y., for respondent. Catherine A. Sheridan, P.C., Carle Place, N.Y., attorney for the children.




DECISION & ORDER

In two related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Klein, J.), dated April 9, 2012, which, after a hearing, in effect, granted the mother's petition to modify the custody provisions of a stipulation of settlement dated November 18, 2006, and December 27, 2006, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties' judgment of divorce dated September 12, 2007, so as to award her sole legal and physical custody of the subject children, and denied his petition to modify the custody provisions of the stipulation of settlement so as to award him sole physical custody of the subject children.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

"A modification of an existing custody arrangement should be allowed only upon a showing of a sufficient change in circumstances demonstrating a real need for a change of custody in order to insure the child's best interests" (Matter of Nava v Kinsler, 85 AD3d 1186, 1186). Here, the Family Court's determinations that there had been a sufficient change in circumstances, that the parties' relationship was too acrimonious to allow for joint decision-making, and that it was in the children's best interests to award sole legal and physical custody to the mother had a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Schweizer v Jablesnik, 95 AD3d 1341; Matter of Picado v Doan, 90 AD3d 932; Matter of Ross v Ross, 86 AD3d 615).
MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur. [*2]

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court