| Matter of Quintanilla v Morales |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07047 [110 AD3d 1081] |
| October 30, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Wilfredo Quintanilla,Respondent, v Sandra Morales, Appellant. |
—[*1] Judith Ellen Stone, Merrick, N.Y., for respondent. Robert C. Mangi, Westbury, 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, Nassau County (Eisman, J.), dated March 28,2012, which, after a hearing, in effect, granted the father's petition to modify a priororder of custody of the same court dated June 9, 2006, entered upon the consent of theparties, so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the subject child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"Modification of an existing custody arrangement is permissible only upon ashowing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification isnecessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child" (Matter of Tori v Tori, 103AD3d 654, 655 [2013]; seeMatter of Ross v Ross, 96 AD3d 856, 857 [2012]; Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8AD3d 487, 488 [2004]). The best interests of the child must be determined by areview of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d167, 171-172 [1982]; Matter ofO'Loughlin v Sweetland, 98 AD3d 983, 984 [2012]). "Since weighing thefactors relevant to any custody determination requires an evaluation of the credibility andsincerity of the parties involved, the hearing court's findings are accorded deference, andwill not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Jackson v Coleman,94 AD3d 762, 763 [2012]; see Matter of Buxenbaum v Fulmer, 82 AD3d 1223, 1224[2011]).
Here, contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly considered thetotality of the circumstances, and its determination that there had been a sufficient changein circumstances requiring a change in custody to protect the best interests of the subjectchild is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. Accordingly, the FamilyCourt's determination will not be disturbed (see Matter of Flores v Mark, 107 AD3d 796, 797 [2013],lv denied 21 NY3d 865 [2013]; Matter of Lawlor v Eder, 106 AD3d 739, 740 [2013]; Matter of Pappas v Kells, 77AD3d 952, 953-954 [2010]).[*2]
The mother's remaining contentions are withoutmerit.
Since the father did not appeal, his contention that the Family Court's award ofvisitation to the mother should be modified is not properly before this Court (see Matter of Wiebke vWiebke, 77 AD3d 964, 965 [2010]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Miller,JJ., concur.