| Sano v Sano |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06018 [98 AD3d 659] |
| August 22, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Keri Sano, Appellant, v Christopher Sano, Appellant.(Action No. 1.) Christopher Sano, Respondent, v Keri Sano, Appellant. (Action No.2.) |
—[*1] Anthony A. Capetola, Williston Park, N.Y. (Danielle J. Seid of counsel), for respondent. James E. Flood, Jr., Massapequa, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In related actions for a divorce and ancillary relief, the wife appeals, as limited by her brief,from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), entered December8, 2011, as, after a hearing, granted the husband's motion to modify the custody provisions of acustody and visitation order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Zimmerman, J.), enteredJanuary 24, 2011, so as to transfer residential custody of the parties' child from her to thehusband. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated January 30, 2012, enforcement ofthe order appealed from was stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
Ordered that the order entered December 8, 2011, is reversed insofar as appealed from, onthe facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the husband's motion is denied, and thecustody provisions of the custody and visitation order of the Family Court, Nassau County,entered January 24, 2011, are reinstated.
"A modification of an existing custody arrangement should be allowed only upon a showingof a sufficient change in circumstances demonstrating a real need for a change of custody in orderto insure the child's best interests" (Matter of Nava v Kinsler, 85 AD3d 1186, 1186 [2011]; see Matter of Mazzola v Lee, 76 AD3d531 [2010]; Matter of Odeh vAssad, 74 AD3d 1345, 1347 [2010]; Matter of Gilleo v Williams, 71 AD3d 1023 [2010]). The husbandfailed to meet that burden with the evidence he presented regarding the wife's interest in spiritualand paranormal phenomena, which did not establish a change in circumstances contrary to thebest interests of the child. Moreover, the evidence of an isolated accidental injury of the childwhile in the wife's care was an insufficient basis on which to change the custodial arrangement(see Matter of Grayson v Fenton, 13AD3d 914 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court's determination that there had been asufficient change in circumstances since the Family Court's issuance of the custody and visitationorder to warrant a [*2]change in residential custody is notsupported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.
The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be addressed in lightof our determination. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.