Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014

COWELL, MICHELE v. PEMBROCK, SR., ROBERT

COWELL, MICHELE v. PEMBROCK, SR., ROBERT
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 3, 2014
COWELL, MICHELE v. PEMBROCK, SR., ROBERT

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 1350 CAF 12-01236 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MICHELE COWELL, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROBERT PEMBROCK, SR., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

ELIZABETH CIAMBRONE, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

VENZON LAW FIRM PC, BUFFALO (CATHARINE M. VENZON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

DOMINIC PAUL CANDINO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered May 14, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, dismissed the petition seeking to modify a prior order that awarded custody of the subject child to respondent.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, dismissed her petition seeking modification of a prior order that awarded custody of the subject child to respondent father.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, Family Court properly dismissed the petition following a hearing. In seeking a change in the established custody arrangement, the mother was required to show “ ‘a change in circumstances [that] reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest[s] of the child’ ” (Matter of Moore v Moore, 78 AD3d 1630, 1630, lv denied 16 NY3d 704), and the record supports the court’s conclusion that the mother failed to make that showing (see Matter of Horn v Horn, 74 AD3d 1848, 1848, lv denied 15 NY3d 710).

Entered: January 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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