From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKenzie v. Polk

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Nov 9, 2018
166 A.D.3d 1529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

1154 CAF 17–01898

11-09-2018

In the Matter of Michael F. MCKENZIE, Sr., Petitioner–Respondent, v. Jessica L. POLK, Respondent–Appellant.

DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. AUDREY ROSE HERMAN, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.


DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.

AUDREY ROSE HERMAN, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, modified a prior order of custody and visitation by awarding the parties joint legal custody of the subject child with primary physical residence with petitioner father and visitation to the mother. We reject the mother's contention that there was not a sufficient change in circumstances warranting an inquiry into whether modification of the prior order is in the child's best interests. "Where an order of custody and visitation is entered on stipulation, a court cannot modify that order unless a sufficient change in circumstances—since the time of the stipulation—has been established, and then only where a modification would be in the best interests of the child[ ]" ( Matter of Hight v. Hight, 19 A.D.3d 1159, 1160, 796 N.Y.S.2d 494 [4th Dept. 2005] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, there was a sufficient change in circumstances inasmuch as the parties "had in practice altered the custody and visitation arrangement set forth in the stipulated order" ( Matter of Donnelly v. Donnelly, 55 A.D.3d 1373, 1373, 865 N.Y.S.2d 442 [4th Dept. 2008] ). Contrary to the mother's further contention, we conclude that a sound and substantial basis in the record supports Supreme Court's determination that awarding the father primary physical custody of the subject child is in the child's best interests (see Matter of Cross v. Caswell, 113 A.D.3d 1107, 1107–1108, 977 N.Y.S.2d 853 [4th Dept. 2014] ).


Summaries of

McKenzie v. Polk

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Nov 9, 2018
166 A.D.3d 1529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

McKenzie v. Polk

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Michael F. MCKENZIE, Sr., Petitioner–Respondent, v…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 9, 2018

Citations

166 A.D.3d 1529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
166 A.D.3d 1529

Citing Cases

William F.G. v. Lisa M.B.

Thus, we conclude that a negative inference against the mother was unwarranted because she did not "withhold[…

William F.G. v. Lisa M.B.

Thus, we conclude that a negative inference against the mother was unwarranted because she did not…