| Matter of Mollet v Mollet |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07114 [99 AD3d 1007] |
| October 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Kiera Mollet, Respondent, v Jason Mollet,Appellant. |
—[*1] Terry R. Woodard, Central Islip, N.Y., for respondent. Diane B. Groom, Central Islip, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, in effect, to modify a priorcustody arrangement set forth in an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (James, Ct. Atty.Ref.), dated May 26, 2010, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order ofthe same court dated August 18, 2011, as, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for solecustody of the subject child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
" ' "In order to modify an existing custody or visitation arrangement, there must be a showingthat there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect thebest interests of the child" ' " (Matter ofFrancois v Grimm, 84 AD3d 1082 [2011], quoting Matter of Peralta v Irrizary, 76 AD3d 561, 562 [2010]; seeFamily Ct Act § 652). "The best interests of the child are determined by a review ofthe totality of the circumstances" (Matter of Garcia v Fountain, 82 AD3d 979, 980 [2011]).
Here, the Family Court's award of sole legal and physical custody of the subject child to themother has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see Matter of McDonough vMcDonough, 73 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2010]; Matter of Tercjak v Tercjak, 49 AD3d 772 [2008]).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Eng, P.J., Skelos, Lott and Cohen, JJ.,concur.