| Matter of Grasso v Grasso |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04696 [51 AD3d 920] |
| May 20, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Richard Grasso,Appellant-Respondent, v Lori Grasso,Respondent-Appellant. |
—[*1] Domenick J. Porco, Scarsdale, N.Y., for respondent-appellant. David J. Beck, Harrison, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an amended order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Duffy, J.),dated November 24, 2006, as, after a hearing, denied those branches of his motion which were toenjoin the mother from relocating with the parties' children to the state of Connecticut and forsole physical custody of the children, and modified his visitation schedule, and the mothercross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same amended order as granted thatbranch of the father's motion which was for sole legal custody of the parties' children, andmodified the father's visitation schedule.
Ordered that the amended order is modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, by (1)deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the father's motion which was for sole legalcustody of the children and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion,and (2) deleting the provisions thereof awarding the father weekend visitation with the childrenthree times a month (four times a month if the month contains five weekends) and directing thatthe children shall be with the mother on the third weekend of the month, and substituting therefora provision awarding the father visitation with the children every other weekend, and (3) deletingthe provision thereof awarding the father visitation with the children every extended weekend (inwhich the Monday immediately following the weekend is a school holiday) from 6:30 p.m. onFriday to 12:00 p.m. on Monday and substituting therefor a provision awarding the fathervisitation with the [*2]children every extended weekend from6:30 p.m. on Friday to 3:00 p.m. on Monday; as so modified, the amended order is affirmedinsofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's determination that relocation of the parties' children to the state ofConnecticut was in the best interests of the children is supported by a sound and substantial basisin the record (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996]; Matter of Cooke v Alaimo, 44 AD3d655 [2007]; Matter of Fegadel vAnderson, 40 AD3d 1091 [2007]; Tornheim v Tornheim, 28 AD3d 535 [2006]).
The Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of thefather's petition which was for sole legal custody of the children. Where divorced parentsexercising joint custody have demonstrated an ability to communicate with each other and worktogether for their children's benefit, the custody arrangement should not be set aside by a court(Matter of Reed v Bernhardt, 33AD3d 1160 [2006]; Matter of Blanchard v Blanchard, 304 AD2d 1048 [2003]).Here, contrary to the father's contention, the record does not demonstrate that the parties'relationship was "so acrimonious, embattled, and embittered" (Granata v Granata, 289AD2d 527, 528 [2001]) as to effectively preclude joint decision making, such that joint custodywas no longer in the best interests of the children (see Braiman v Braiman, 44 NY2d 584[1978]; Crane v Crane, 264 AD2d 749 [1999]). Moreover, under the circumstances ofthis case, we find that the award of sole legal custody to the father "unnecessarily complicateseffective decision making during the time the [children are] physically with the [mother]"(Gainey v Gainey, 303 AD2d 628, 630 [2003]; see Chamberlain v Chamberlain, 24 AD3d 589 [2005]).
The modification of the visitation schedule set forth herein will allow a continuation of ameaningful relationship between the father and the children (see Matter of Wisloh-Silverman v Dono, 39 AD3d 555 [2007]; Matter of Cooke v Alaimo, 44 AD3d655 [2007]), and will more appropriately meet the best interests of the children. Spolzino,J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.