| Matter of Tori v Tori |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00752 [103 AD3d 654] |
| February 6, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Michael J. Tori,Respondent, v Joan Ann Tori, Appellant. |
—[*1] Wolfson & Egitto, P.C., Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Christopher P. Ragucci of counsel),for respondent. Dennis R. Vetrano, Jr., Beacon, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the motherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), datedDecember 21, 2011, which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition to modify anorder of the same court (Gilbert, Ct. Atty. Ref.) dated June 24, 2008, awarding her solecustody of the subject child, so as to award him sole custody.
Ordered that the order dated December 21, 2011, is affirmed, with costs.
The Family Court did not err in granting the father's petition to modify the order ofcustody so as to award him sole custody of the subject child. Modification of an existingcustody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change incircumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interestsand welfare of the child (seeMatter of O'Loughlin v Sweetland, 98 AD3d 983 [2012]; Matter of Ross v Ross, 96AD3d 856 [2012]; Matterof Strand-O'Shea v Kraemer, 96 AD3d 862 [2012]; Matter of Jackson v Coleman,94 AD3d 762 [2012]).
Interference with the relationship between a child and the noncustodial parent is anact so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to per se raise a strongprobability that the offending party is unfit to act as custodial parent (see Matter of Purse v Crocker,95 AD3d 1216 [2012]; Matter of Larkin v White, 64 AD3d 707 [2009]; Matterof Chebuske v Burnhard-Vogt, 284 AD2d 456 [2001]). Thus, a change of custody isappropriate if the custodial parent's conduct deliberately frustrates, denies, or interfereswith the noncustodial parent's visitation rights (see Matter of Larkin v White, 64 AD3d 707 [2009];Matter of Chebuske v Burnhard-Vogt, 284 AD2d 456 [2001]). Here, theevidence supports the court's determination that the mother continually interfered withthe visitation time between the father and the child and, as a result, disrupted theirrelationship.
As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, [*2]character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, theFamily Court's determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound andsubstantial basis in the record (see Matter of Arndt v Arndt, 100 AD3d 879 [2012]; Matter of Doroski v Ashton,99 AD3d 902 [2012]; Matter of Blakeney v Blakeney, 99 AD3d 898 [2012],lv denied 20 NY3d 854 [2012]; Matter of O'Loughlin v Sweetland, 98 AD3d 983 [2012]).Here, we find no basis to disturb the court's determination that there has been a change incircumstances such that it is in the child's best interests to award sole custody to thefather. Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Miller, JJ., concur.