| Harris v Harris |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08595 [112 AD3d 887] |
| December 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Debra Ayer Harris, Appellant, v Kevin JamesHarris, Respondent. |
—[*1] Gerard A. Imperato, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent. Elizabeth M. Niemi, Amityville, N.Y., attorney for the child Delilah Harris. Dawn M. Shammas, Harrison, N.Y., attorney for the child Jamison Harris.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the mother appeals, as limited by herbrief, from stated portions of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, KingsCounty (Thomas, J.), dated March 13, 2012, which, upon a decision of the same courtdated December 9, 2011, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded custody of theparties' children to the father.
Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, withcosts.
Modification of an existing court-sanctioned custody arrangement is permissible onlyupon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification isnecessary to ensure the best interests of the children (see Matter of Sidorowicz v Sidorowicz, 101 AD3d 737,738 [2012]; Matter of Englese vStrauss, 83 AD3d 705, 706 [2011]; Matter of Said v Said, 61 AD3d 879, 880 [2009]). Ascustody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character,temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Supreme Court's determination should notbe disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbachv Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174 [1982]). Here, the Supreme Court'sdeterminations that there had been a change in circumstances, and that a transfer ofcustody of the parties' children to the father would be in the children's best interests, havea sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, should not be disturbed (see Matter of Bennett vSchultz, 110 AD3d 792 [2013]; Matter of Doroski v Ashton, 99 AD3d 902 [2012]; Matter of Tobar vVelez-Molina, 95 AD3d 1224 [2012]).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Dickerson, J.P., Hall, Cohenand Miller, JJ., concur.
Appeal by the plaintiff Debra Ayer Harris, as limited by her brief, from statedportions of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March13, 2012. By order to show cause dated March 14, 2013, inter alia, the parties or theirattorneys were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or shouldnot be made and entered dismissing the appeal from so much of the judgment as pertainsto visitation on the ground that it has been rendered academic by a subsequent stipulationon the issue of visitation entered into between the parties on November 7, 2012. Bydecision and order on motion of this Court dated July 1, 2013, the motion was held inabeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination uponthe argument or submission thereof.
Upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon theargument of the appeal, it is
Ordered that the motion is denied. Dickerson, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Miller, JJ.,concur.