| Matter of Scott LL. v Rachel MM. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06334 [98 AD3d 1197] |
| September 27, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Scott LL., Appellant, v Rachel MM.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Christopher A. Pogson, Binghamton, for respondent. Michelle E. Stone, Vestal, attorney for the child.
Garry, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Pines, J.), enteredApril 1, 2011, which, among other things, dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceedingpursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.
An April 2010 Family Court order awarded sole custody of the parties' child (born in 2006)to respondent (hereinafter the mother) and provided petitioner (hereinafter the father) withvisitation every other weekend, every other Thursday evening and half of all holidays. During theyear following entry of the custody order, the parties filed numerous petitions in Family Court,all but one of which were withdrawn. The remaining petition, the father's application formodification of the custody order seeking sole custody of the child, proceeded to a hearing inMarch 2011. At the conclusion of the hearing, Family Court determined that the father had notestablished that there had been a change of circumstances warranting modification of the priorcustody order. However, upon the agreement of all parties, the court added a provision to theorder granting the father access to the child's medical and educational records. The father nowappeals.
We reject the father's argument that Family Court improperly limited his proof, denying hima fair hearing. Family Court has "broad discretion in determining the parameters for proof to beaccepted at the hearing" (Matter of Coolv Malone, 66 AD3d 1171, 1173 [2009] [internal [*2]quotation marks and citation omitted]), and we do not discern anyabuse of this discretion in the record before us. The court properly precluded hearsay evidenceduring both parties' testimony and limited the proof to matters relevant to the father's applicationfor sole custody.
We further agree with Family Court that there was no proof of a change in circumstanceswarranting modification of the prior order to ensure the best interests of the child (see Matter of Fox v Grivas, 81 AD3d1014, 1015 [2011]; Matter ofSparling v Robinson, 35 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2006]; Matter of Meyer v Lerche, 24 AD3d 976, 976-977 [2005]). Instead,the father's testimony was simply a catalogue of his complaints with the existing custody orderand dissatisfaction with the mother having sole custody of the child. It is abundantly clear fromthe record that the parties have made no improvement in their ability to communicate with eachother, and no basis for modification of the custody order was shown.
Peters P.J., Lahtinen, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.