Opinion
06-29-2017
In re MARTHA V., Petitioner–Respondent, v. TONY R., Respondent–Appellant.
Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for appellant. Law Offices of Susan Barrie, New York (Susan Barrie of counsel), for respondent. Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, attorney for the children.
Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for appellant.
Law Offices of Susan Barrie, New York (Susan Barrie of counsel), for respondent.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, attorney for the children.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa–Lintner, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2016, which granted the mother's petition to modify a custody order and awarded her sole legal and physical custody of the parties' children, subject to visitation with respondent father on alternate weekends, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Contrary to the father's contention, the court properly determined that a full evidentiary hearing was not necessary because it possessed sufficient information to render an informed decision on the children's best interests and because the father made no offer of proof that would have affected the outcome (see Matter of Tony F. v. Stephanie D., 146 A.D.3d 691, 45 N.Y.S.3d 463 [1st Dept.2017] ; Matter of Fayona C. v. Christopher T., 103 A.D.3d 424, 959 N.Y.S.2d 183 [1st Dept.2013] ; compare S.L. v. J.R., 27 N.Y.3d 558, 564, 36 N.Y.S.3d 411, 56 N.E.3d 193 [2016] ). Both parties and the attorney appointed for the children, then ages 12 and 15, were provided ample opportunity to present their positions, and the court made the factual basis for its determination clear on the record.
Furthermore, the court's decision to modify custody based on a change of circumstances and in the best interests of the children, had a sound and substantial basis in the record. The children stated that they wanted to live with their mother for reasons that included verbal abuse by the father, the father's failure to provide them with food and clothing on a consistent basis, and an incident of domestic violence in their presence that led to the police being called (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ; Matter of Maria A.M. v. Dextor N., 95 A.D.3d 578, 944 N.Y.S.2d 91 [1st Dept.2012] ).
SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, ANDRIAS, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ., concur.