| Matter of Zeis v Slater |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 10012 [57 AD3d 793] |
| December 16, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Richard Zeis, Respondent, v April Slater,Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard Zeis, East Northport, N.Y., respondent pro se. Amy L. Colvin, Huntington, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from anorder of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kelley, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated September 10, 2007, which,after a hearing, in effect, granted the father's petition to modify a prior order of the same court datedJune 9, 2006, inter alia, awarding her sole physical custody of the subject child, and, among otherthings, awarded the father sole physical custody of the subject child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
To modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change of circumstancessuch that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child (see Matter of Weinberg v Weinberg, 52AD3d 616 [2008]; Matter ofStrand-O'Shea v O'Shea, 32 AD3d 398 [2006]). The best interests of the child aredetermined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). Since the Family Court's custody determination is largely dependent upon anassessment of the credibility of witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of theparents, the Family Court's determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantialbasis in the record (see Matter of Weinberg v Weinberg, 52 AD3d at 617; Matter of Lichtenfeld v Lichtenfeld, 41AD3d 849, 850 [2007]).
Here, the Family Court's determination that there had been a change in circumstances since theissuance of the prior custody order, and that it was in the child's best interests to modify that [*2]order so as to, inter alia, award the father sole physical custody, has asound and substantial basis in the record. The hearing testimony established, among other things, thatthe mother deliberately interfered with the father's visitation rights, and moreover, denigrated the fatherin the child's presence. This conduct is so inconsistent with the child's best interests that it per se raises astrong probability that the mother is unfit to act as a custodial parent (see Matter of Weinberg vWeinberg, 52 AD3d at 617; Matter of Lichtenfeld v Lichtenfeld, 41 AD3d at 850).Accordingly, the Family Court's determination should not be disturbed.
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Dillon and Covello,JJ., concur.