| Matter of Diaz v Garcia |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05181 [119 AD3d 682] |
| July 9, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 In the Matter of David Diaz,Respondent, v Masiel Garcia, Appellant. |
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Lance K. Dandridge, Jamaica, N.Y., for respondent.
Nestor Soto, Astoria, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Queens County (McGrady, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated June24, 2013, which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition to modify the visitationprovisions of an order of the same court (Tally, J.), dated May 19, 2011, so as to awardhim certain unsupervised visitation with the subject child.
Ordered that the order dated June 24, 2013, is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
A visitation order may be modified upon a showing of a sufficient change incircumstances since the entry of the prior order such that modification is warranted tofurther the child's best interests (see Family Ct Act § 652; Matter of Madden vRuskiewicz, 117 AD3d 827 [2014]; Matter of Luo v Yang, 103 AD3d 636 [2013]; Matter of Awan v Awan, 75AD3d 597, 598 [2010]). The paramount concern when making any custody orvisitation determination is the best interests of the child, under the totality of thecircumstances (see Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380-381[2004]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]; Friederwitzer vFriederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 96 [1982]; Matter of Boggio v Boggio, 96 AD3d 834, 835 [2012]; Galanti v Kraus, 85 AD3d723, 724 [2011]). "The best interests of the child generally lie in being nurtured andguided by both parents" (Matterof Ross v Morrison, 98 AD3d 515, 517 [2012]; see Matter of Zwillman v Kull,90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]; Matter of Jules v Corriette, 76 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2010]).Since custody and visitation determinations "necessarily depend[ ] to a great extent uponan assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference isaccorded the court's findings. Therefore, its findings should not be set aside unless theylack a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Elliott v Felder, 69 AD3d 623 [2010] [citationomitted]).
Here, contrary to the mother's contentions, the Family Court's determination has asound and substantial basis in the record. Thus, the determination will not be disturbed(see Matter of Holmes vHolmes, 116 AD3d 955, 956 [2014]). Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Lott and Roman,JJ., concur.