Opinion
535 CAF 17–00120
04-27-2018
In the Matter of John F. GREENE, IV, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Brooke D. KRANOCK, Respondent–Appellant.
JOSEPH P. MILLER, CUBA, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. MARK A. FOTI, ROCHESTER, FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT. CAROLYN R. KELLOGG, WELLSVILLE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
JOSEPH P. MILLER, CUBA, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MARK A. FOTI, ROCHESTER, FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
CAROLYN R. KELLOGG, WELLSVILLE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted the petition of petitioner father seeking to modify the existing custody order by awarding him primary physical placement of the subject child. Contrary to the mother's contention, the father met his burden of establishing a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether a modification of the custody arrangement is in the best interests of the child (see generally Matter of Peay v. Peay , 156 A.D.3d 1358, 1360, 67 N.Y.S.3d 751 [4th Dept. 2017] ). Although Family Court did not make an express finding of a change in circumstances, "we have the authority to ‘review the record to ascertain whether the requisite change in circumstances existed’ " ( Matter of Allen v. Boswell , 149 A.D.3d 1528, 1528, 53 N.Y.S.3d 432 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 902, 67 N.Y.S.3d 127, 89 N.E.3d 517 [2017] ). We conclude that there was a change in circumstances based on the undisputed evidence at the hearing of domestic violence in the mother's household (see id. at 1528–1529, 53 N.Y.S.3d 432 ; Matter of Belcher v. Morgado , 147 A.D.3d 1335, 1336, 46 N.Y.S.3d 737 [4th Dept. 2017] ), the mother's frequent changes of residence (see Matter of Siler v. Wright , 64 A.D.3d 926, 928–929, 882 N.Y.S.2d 574 [3d Dept. 2009] ; Matter of Green v. Perry , 18 A.D.3d 923, 924, 794 N.Y.S.2d 495 [3d Dept. 2005] ), and the child's repeated changes of school (see Matter of Stanton v. Kelso , 148 A.D.3d 1809, 1810, 50 N.Y.S.3d 785 [4th Dept. 2017] ). Contrary to the mother's further contention, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination that awarding the father primary physical placement of the child is in the child's best interests (see generally Eschbach v. Eschbach , 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171–174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.