| Matter of Strand-O'Shea v Kraemer |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04763 [96 AD3d 862] |
| June 13, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Cathleen Strand-O'Shea,Respondent, v William Kraemer, Appellant. (Proceeding Nos. 1 and 2.) In the Matter ofWilliam Kraemer, Appellant, v Cathleen Strand-O'Shea, Respondent. (Proceeding Nos. 3 and4.) |
—[*1] Debra A. Byrnes, Centereach, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In four related custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, thefather appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, SuffolkCounty (Lynaugh, J.), dated February 17, 2010, as dismissed (a) his petition to modify a priororder of the same court dated November 6, 2007, inter alia, awarding the mother sole custody ofthe parties' child, so as to award sole custody of the subject child to him, and (b) his separatepetition to hold the mother in contempt for violating the visitation schedule set forth in the priororder.
Ordered that the order dated February 17, 2010, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
" 'Modification of an existing custody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing thatthere has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure thecontinued best interests and welfare of the child' " (Matter of Ross v Ross, 86 AD3d 615, 616 [2011], quoting Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8 AD3d487, 488 [2004]; see Family Ct Act § 652; Matter of Buxenbaum v Fulmer, 82 AD3d 1223, 1223 [2011]; Matter of Gallo v Gallo, 81 AD3d826, 827 [2011]; Matter of Watsonv Smith, 52 AD3d 615, 616 [2008]). Here, the Family Court properly dismissed thefather's petition to modify a prior order so as to award sole custody of the subject child to him, ashe failed to demonstrate the requisite change in circumstances.
Moreover, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the father'spetition to hold the mother in contempt for violating the visitation provisions of the prior order,which awarded custody to the mother and visitation to him (see generally Matter of Philie v Singer, 79 AD3d 1041, 1042[2010]; Matter of Kraemer vStrand-O'Shea, 66 AD3d 901, 901 [2009]). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Miller, JJ.,concur.