Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

Doroski v. Ashton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 17, 2012

99 A.D.3d 902; 952 N.Y.2d 259

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

E v. v. R.V. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Bennett v. Schultz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Bennett v. Schultz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Matter of Lopez v. Alvarez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Zielazny v. Martorano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
Pandis v. Lapas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Halioris (Halioris) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Boodhoo v. Rampersaud (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Tori v. Tori (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Tori v. Tori (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Harris v. Harris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Harris v. Harris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Bacchi v. Clancy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Bacchi v. Clancy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

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

*903Modification of an existing custody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the best interests of the child (see Matter of Strand-O’Shea v O’Shea, 32 AD3d 398 [2006]). Parental alienation of a child from the other parent is “an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the [offending party] is unfit to act as custodial parent” (Entwistle v Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380, 384-385 [1978]; see Bobinski v Bobinski, 9 AD3d 441 [2004]; Stern v Stern, 304 AD2d 649 [2003]; Young v Young, 212 AD2d 114, 122 [1995]). As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174 [1982]). Here, the Family Court’s determinations that there had been a change in circumstances, and that a transfer of sole custody to the father would be in the child’s best interests, have a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, should not be disturbed (see Matter of Tobar v Velez-Molina, 95 AD3d 1224 [2012]; Matter of Galanos v Galanos, 28 AD3d 554, 555 [2006]).

The mother’s remaining contention is without merit. Eng, EJ., Rivera, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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