| Matter of Green v Bontzolakes |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02559 [83 AD3d 1401] |
| April 1, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Norman E. Green, Respondent, v JacquelineBontzolakes, Appellant. (Proceeding Nos. 1 and 3.) In the Matter of Jacqueline Bontzolakes,Appellant, v Norman E. Green, Respondent. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1]
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Rosalie Bailey, J.), entered October7, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things,awarded sole custody of the parties' child to petitioner Norman E. Green and visitation torespondent Jacqueline Bontzolakes.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: The mother of the child at issue, the respondent in proceeding Nos. 1 and 3and the petitioner in proceeding No. 2, appeals from an order that, following a hearing, grantedthe petitions in proceeding Nos. 1 and 3. The father, by those petitions, alleged that the motherviolated the provisions of a prior order of custody and visitation and sought to modify that orderby awarding him sole custody of the parties' daughter and granting visitation to the mother.Family Court also denied the mother's petition in proceeding No. 2 seeking modification of thevisitation provisions of the prior order. Contrary to the mother's contention, the court properlyawarded the father sole custody of the child (see Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743 [2010]). "'Generally, a court's determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon afirst-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to[*2]great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks anevidentiary basis in the record' " (id. at 1744). We see no basis to disturb the court'sdetermination.
We have considered the mother's remaining contentions and conclude that they are withoutmerit. Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.