| Matter of Sweetser v Willis |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00797 [91 AD3d 963] |
| Jnury 31, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Brooke Sweetser, Respondent, v TimothyM. Willis, Appellant. |
—[*1] Diane B. Groom, Central Islip, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Boggio, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated March 7, 2011,which, after a hearing, granted that branch of the mother's petition which was for permission torelocate with the children to Southampton, New York.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"To modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change incircumstances" (Matter of Englese vStrauss, 83 AD3d 705, 706 [2011]; see Matter of Harding v Harding, 84 AD3d 1086, 1086 [2011]).Since the mother was seeking permission to relocate, she bore the burden of proof by apreponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Harding v Harding, 84 AD3d at 1086;Matter of Englese v Strauss, 83 AD3d at 706). A custodial parent's request to relocate"must be considered on its own merits with due consideration of all the relevant facts andcircumstances and with predominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely toserve the best interests of the child" (Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739[1996]; see Matter of Harding v Harding, 84 AD3d at 1086). Moreover, "[s]ince theFamily Court's custody determination is largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibilityof the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, itsdetermination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record"(Matter of Plaza v Plaza, 305 AD2d 607, 607 [2003]; see Matter of Harding vHarding, 84 AD3d at 1086).
Here, the mother established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a change incircumstances and that her relocation with the children to Southampton, New York, 55 milesfrom their current residence in Huntington, New York, was in the children's best interests (seeMatter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d at 739; Matter of Harding v Harding, 84 AD3dat 1086; see also Matter of Mooney vFerone, 34 AD3d 679, 680 [2006]; cf. Schwartz v Schwartz, 70 AD3d 923, 923-925 [2010]; Matter of Friedman v Rome, 46 AD3d682, 683 [2007]). Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court's determination doesnot lack a sound and substantial basis in the record.
The father's remaining contention is without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Chambers andHall, JJ., concur.