Adams v. Perryman

To modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child (see Matter of Zeis v Slater, 57 AD3d 793 , 794 [2008]). The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 , 172 [1982]). Deference should be accorded the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and the hearing court’s custody

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. The mother “presented no evidence of parental alienation that would justify a change in physical custody” (Matter of Roelofsen v Tiberie, 64 AD3d 603 , 604 [2009]). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court’s determination (see Matter of Roelofsen v Tiberie, 64 AD3d 603 [2009]; see also Matter of Chase v Matanda-Chase, 41 AD3d 475 , 476 [2007]; Matter of Bryant v Nazario, 306 AD2d 529 [2003]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Miller and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.