Matter of Chabotte v Faella
2010 NY Slip Op 07339 [77 AD3d 749]
October 12, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 15, 2010


In the Matter of Gregory M. Chabotte, Jr.,Respondent,
v
Samantha P. Faella, Appellant.

[*1]John R. Lewis, Sleepy Hollow, N.Y., for appellant.

Joseph J. Artrip, New Windsor, N.Y., for respondent.

Jessica Bacal, Katonah, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limitedby her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), enteredNovember 19, 2009, as, after a hearing, granted the father's petition to modify a prior order of thesame court dated March 25, 2009, so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the subjectchild.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, 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" (Matter of Zeis v Slater, 57 AD3d 793,793 [2008]; see Matter of Jones vLeppert, 75 AD3d 552 [2010]; Matter of Gilleo v Williams, 71 AD3d 1023 [2010]). The best interestsof the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach vEschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). "Since any custody determination depends to a very greatextent upon the hearing court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character,temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great respect and will notbe disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record, or are contrary to the weightof the evidence" (Trinagel v Boyar, 70AD3d 816, 816 [2010]; see Matter ofRussell v Russell, 72 AD3d 973, 974 [2010]; Matter of Adams v Perryman, 68 AD3d 860 [2009]). Here, the FamilyCourt's award of sole custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will notbe disturbed (see Matter of Jones v Leppert, 75 AD3d at 553; Matter of Zeis vSlater, 57 AD3d at 794). Santucci, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.


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.