Majority
Conversely, the father’s petition to modify the March 2010 order did allege that a change in circumstances had occurred. The Family Court’s determination in the March 2010 order awarding the mother unsupervised overnight visitation was based, in part, on the mother’s testimony that she had established a stable home. The father’s petition alleged that the mother’s living situation was now unstable. At the hearing, the mother testified that she had moved out of that stable home, and that she had been living in the finished basement of a house owned by a man who was a complete stranger to the children. Based on this evidence and the in camera interviews with the children, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the father’s petition and canceling the mother’s overnight visitation.
In view of the foregoing, we do not address the subsequent events referred to by the Attorney for the Children in Part III of her brief, because those events are outside the record on appeal and there is no indication that the record before us is insufficient for determining the mother’s fitness and right to custody (see generally Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299 , 318 [1992]; cf. Matter of Gatke v Johnson, 50 AD3d 798 [2008]). Florio, J.R, Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Molinari v. Tuthill 59 AD3d 722 at 723 p. 764
- Varricchio v. Varricchio 68 AD3d 774 at 775 p. 764
- In re Michael B. 80 NY2d 299 at 318 p. 764