Opinion
03-13-2024
In the Matter of Thierry DACLIN–GOYATTON, appellant, v. Charlotte COUSINS, respondent.
Abbe Shapiro, Mount Sinai, NY, for appellant. The Law Office of Robert G. Venturo, P.C., Patchogue, NY, for respondent. Laurette D. Mulry, Central Islip, NY (John B. Belmonte of counsel), attorney for the child.
Abbe Shapiro, Mount Sinai, NY, for appellant.
The Law Office of Robert G. Venturo, P.C., Patchogue, NY, for respondent.
Laurette D. Mulry, Central Islip, NY (John B. Belmonte of counsel), attorney for the child.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., PAUL WOOTEN, WILLIAM G. FORD, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (George F. Harkin, J.), dated October 15, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, denied the father’s petition to modify the custody provisions of a foreign judgment so as to award him sole legal and residential custody of the parties’ child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The parties have one child together, born in 2014. The father, who is a native of France, commenced a custody proceeding in France against the mother, who resided in Suffolk County. On April 3, 2018, a French court issued a judgment, inter alia, awarding the parties joint legal custody of the child, with primary residential custody to the mother.
In December 2018, the father filed a petition in the Family Court, Suffolk County, to modify the custody provisions of the judgment so as to award him sole legal and residential custody of the child. By order dated October 15, 2021, the Family Court, after a hearing, denied the petition. The father appeals.
" ‘In order to modify an existing custody or parental access arrangement, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child’ " (Matter of Johnson v. McWilliams, 212 A.D.3d 620, 621, 179 N.Y.S.3d 622, quoting Matter of LaPera v. Restivo, 202 A.D.3d 788, 789, 158 N.Y.S.3d 858). In any custody determination, "[t]he paramount concern … is the best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances" (Matter of Blackman v. Barge, 207 A.D.3d 537, 539, 169 N.Y.S.3d 845; see Matter of Englert v. Hilton, 205 A.D.3d 807, 808, 165 N.Y.S.3d 897). Since the Family Court’s determination with respect to custody and parental access depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Bristow v. Patrice, 221 A.D.3d 684, 685, 199 N.Y.S.3d 629; Matter of Langenau v. Hargrove, 198 A.D.3d 650, 651–652, 156 N.Y.S.3d 37; Matter of Henry v. Fiala, 184 A.D.3d 562, 563, 122 N.Y.S.3d 908).
Here, the Family Court’s determination denying the father’s petition to modify the custody provisions of the judgment so as to award him sole legal and residential custody of the child has a sound and sub- stantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260; Matter of Ramsey v. Fanstin, 213 A.D.3d 942, 182 N.Y.S.3d 664; Matter of Barrow v. Carcaterra, 210 A.D.3d 889, 890–891, 177 N.Y.S.3d 724; Matter of Picitelli v. Carbone, 208 A.D.3d 582, 172 N.Y.S.3d 714).
IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, FORD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.