Matter of Ingersoll v Platt
2010 NY Slip Op 03584 [72 AD3d 1560]
April 30, 2010
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 9, 2010


In the Matter of Heather A. Ingersoll, Respondent, v Lonnie S.Platt, Appellant.

[*1]Koslosky & Koslosky, Utica (William L. Koslosky of counsel), forrespondent-appellant.

Peter J. DiGiorgio, Jr., Law Guardian, Utica, for Brandon S.P. and Bret M.P.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (James R. Griffith, J.), enteredJanuary 15, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia,awarded sole custody of the parties' children to petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order modifying the parties' existing jointcustody arrangement, with physical custody with petitioner mother and visitation with the father,by awarding the mother sole custody of the parties' two children and continuing visitation withthe father. We reject the father's contention that the order is not supported by a sound andsubstantial basis in the record. Family Court properly determined that there was a substantialchange in circumstances that warranted modification of the existing joint custody order in thebest interests of the children. The record establishes offensive behavior of the father toward themother in the presence of the children, his sporadic and often nonexistent exercise of visitationwith the children, and his refusal to accept the medical diagnosis of the older child or cooperatewith the treatment of that child (see generally Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171[1982]; Matter of Hurlburt v Behr,70 AD3d 1266 [2010]; Matter ofOmahen v Omahen, 64 AD3d 975 [2009]). In addition, the parties' acrimoniousrelationship and inability to communicate with each other renders the existing joint custodyarrangement inappropriate (see Omahen, 64 AD3d at 975-976; Matter of Betro v Carbone, 50 AD3d1583, 1584 [2008]; Matter ofRhubart v Rhubart, 15 AD3d 936 [2005]). "The determination of the court is entitled togreat deference, and where, as here, it is based upon a sound and substantial basis in the record,it will not be disturbed" (Matter ofLewis R.E. v Deloris A.E., 37 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2007]). Present—Scudder, P.J.,Smith, Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.