Opinion
06-09-2017
In the Matter of Timothy MYC, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Stacy WAGNER, Respondent–Appellant.
Elizabeth Ciambrone, Buffalo, for Respondent–Appellant. Michelle G. Chaas, Buffalo, for Petitioner–Respondent. Jennifer Paulino, Attorney for the Child, Buffalo.
Elizabeth Ciambrone, Buffalo, for Respondent–Appellant.
Michelle G. Chaas, Buffalo, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Jennifer Paulino, Attorney for the Child, Buffalo.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, DEJOSEPH, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM: In this proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, respondent mother appeals from an amended order that, inter alia, awarded sole custody of the subject child to petitioner father. Contrary to the mother's contention, "this proceeding involves an initial court determination with respect to custody and, [a]lthough the parties' informal arrangement is a factor to be considered, [the father] is not required to prove a substantial change in circumstances in order to warrant a modification thereof" (Matter of DeNise v. DeNise, 129 A.D.3d 1539, 1539–1540, 11 N.Y.S.3d 369 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Walker v. Carroll, 140 A.D.3d 1669, 1669, 32 N.Y.S.3d 532 ). Furthermore, contrary to the mother's additional contentions, we conclude that Family Court's determination that the best interests of the child would be best served by awarding custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Bonnell v. Rodgers, 106 A.D.3d 1515, 1515, 966 N.Y.S.2d 316, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 864, 2013 WL 4790632 ; Matter of Thillman v. Mayer, 85 A.D.3d 1624, 1625, 926 N.Y.S.2d 779 ). "The court's determination following a hearing that the best interests of the child would be served by such an award is entitled to great deference ..., particularly in view of the hearing court's superior ability to evaluate the character and credibility of the witnesses ... We will not disturb that determination inasmuch as the record establishes that it is the product of the court's careful weighing of [the] appropriate factors" (Matter of Joyce S. v. Robert W.S., 142 A.D.3d 1343, 1344, 38 N.Y.S.3d 300, lv. denied 29 N.Y.3d 906, 2017 WL 1730862 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Busse v. Huerta, 149 A.D.3d 1607, 1607, 51 N.Y.S.3d 476 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the amended order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.