Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Nava v. Kinsler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 28, 2011

85 A.D.3d 1186; 926 N.Y.S.2d 310

Cases that cite this one

49 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Kimberly A.H. v. Perez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Kimberly A.H. v. Perez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Brown v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Brown v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Matter of D.B. v. S.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
Matter of Martyna B. v. Marlo M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Markis L. v. Jacquelyn C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Markis L. v. Jacquelyn C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Dennis v. Davis-Schloemer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Marco B. v. Marnie Ann J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Bullard v. Clark (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Madeline O'Connor v. Klotz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Klotz v. O'Connor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Connolly v. Walsh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Navarrete v. Navarrete (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Valencia v. Ripley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Lazo v. Cherrez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Matter of Mondschein v. Mondschein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Matter of Boodhoo v. Rampersaud (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
McCance v. DeWitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
McCance v. DeWitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Cruz v. Cruz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Cruz v. Cruz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Anonymous 2011-1 v. Anonymous 2011-2 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Anonymous 2011-1 v. Anonymous 2011-2 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated June 21, 2009, which, after a hearing, denied her petition to modify an order of the same court dated February 21, 2007, awarding the father residential custody of the subject child upon the parties’ consent, so as to award her residential custody of the child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A modification of an existing custody arrangement should be allowed only upon a showing of a sufficient change in circumstances demonstrating a real need for a change of custody in order to insure the child’s best interests (see Matter of Manfredo v Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498, 499 [2008]; Matter of Shehata v Shehata, 31 AD3d 773, 773-774 [2006]). The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Chabotte v Faella, 77 AD3d 749, 749-750 [2010]). Although the authority of the Appellate Division in matters of custody is as broad as that of the hearing court (see Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946, 947 [1985]; Giatras v Giatras, 202 AD2d 389, 390 [1994]), deference should be accorded the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, *1187and the hearing court’s custody determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Adams v Perryman, 68 AD3d 860, 861 [2009]; cf. Matter of Marrero v Centeno, 71 AD3d 771, 773 [2010]; Matter of Larkin v White, 64 AD3d 707, 708-709 [2009]; Matter of Volpe v Volpe, 61 AD3d 691, 692 [2009]).

Here, the Family Court’s determination that the mother failed to satisfy her burden of demonstrating a change of circumstances warranting a change of custody is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Trinagel v Boyar, 70 AD3d 816, 816 [2010]; Matter of Adams v Perryman, 68 AD3d at 861; Matter of Bryant v Nazario, 306 AD 2d 529, 529 [2003]; Matter of Murray v Hall, 294 AD2d 504, 505 [2002]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother’s petition to modify an order awarding the father residential custody of the subject child upon the parties’ consent, so as to award her residential custody of the subject child. Mastro, J.P., Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.