| Matter of Dormio v Mahoney |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07212 [77 AD3d 1464] |
| October 8, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Shelly Dormio, Appellant, v Patrick Mahoney,Respondent. |
—[*1]
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Frank S. Cook, J.H.O.), enteredMarch 18, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, insofar as appealedfrom, dismissed the petition for sole custody.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner mother appeals from an order dismissing her petition, following a hearing,that sought to modify a prior custody order with respect to the parties' child. The prior order wasentered following a lengthy hearing and, inter alia, awarded joint custody of the child to the parties, withthe child to reside with each parent during alternate weeks. Contrary to the contention of the mother,Family Court properly dismissed her petition. "A party seeking a change in an established custodyarrangement must show 'a change in circumstances [that] reflects a real need for change to ensure thebest interest[s] of the child' " (Matter of DiFiore v Scott, 2 AD3d 1417, 1417 [2003]; see Matter of Chrysler v Fabian, 66 AD3d 1446 [2009], lvdenied 13 NY3d 715 [2010]). An existing custody arrangement is not subject to modification"merely because of changes in marital status, economic circumstances or improvements in moral orpsychological adjustment, at least so long as [a] custodial parent has not been shown to be unfit, orperhaps less fit, to continue as [a] proper custodian" (Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 770[1975]; see Di Fiore, 2 AD3d 1417). We conclude that the court's determination dismissingthe petition has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and we therefore will not disturb it (see Matter of Horn v Horn, 74 AD3d1848 [2010]). Present—Smith, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Sconiers and Pine, JJ.