| Matter of Doroski v Ashton |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06951 [99 AD3d 902] |
| October 17, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jeffrey Doroski, Respondent, v NancyAshton, Appellant. |
—[*1] Feldman and Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven A. Feldman and Arza Feldman of counsel),for respondent. Debra A. Brynes, Centereach, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Cheng, J.), dated December 8, 2011, which,after a hearing, granted the father's petition to modify a prior order of the same court (Lynaugh,J.) dated August 4, 2005, which awarded sole custody of the parties' child to her, with visitationto the father, so as to award the father sole custody, with visitation to her.
Ordered that the order dated December 8, 2011, is affirmed, with costs payable by theappellant to the petitioner.
Modification of an existing custody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing thatthere has been a change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the bestinterests of the child (see Matter ofStrand-O'Shea v O'Shea, 32 AD3d 398 [2006]). Parental alienation of a child from theother parent is "an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise astrong probability that the [offending party] is unfit to act as custodial parent" (Entwistle vEntwistle, 61 AD2d 380, 384-385 [1978]; see Bobinski v Bobinski, 9 AD3d 441 [2004]; Stern vStern, 304 AD2d 649 [2003]; Young v Young, 212 AD2d 114, 122 [1995]). Ascustody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character,temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court's determination should not bedisturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach vEschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174 [1982]). Here, the Family Court's determinations thatthere had been a change in circumstances, and that a transfer of sole custody to the father wouldbe in the child's best interests, have a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, shouldnot be disturbed (see Matter of Tobar vVelez-Molina, 95 AD3d 1224 [2012]; Matter of Galanos v Galanos, 28 AD3d 554, 555 [2006]).
The mother's remaining contention is without merit. Eng, P.J., Rivera, Hall and Sgroi, JJ.,concur.