Keller v. Keller

• Decision Date: 04 October 2019
• Docket Number: CAF 18–00056,779
• Citation: 176 A.D.3d 1573,107 N.Y.S.3d 912 (Mem)
• Parties: In the Matter of Casey KELLER, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Jessica M. KELLER, Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

176 A.D.3d 1573
107 N.Y.S.3d 912 (Mem)

In the Matter of Casey KELLER, Petitioner–Respondent,
v.
Jessica M. KELLER, Respondent–Appellant.

779
CAF 18–00056

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: October 4, 2019

D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (JOHN A. CIRANDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.

STUART J. LAROSE, SYRACUSE, FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.

MICHAEL J. KERWIN, MANLIUS, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

107 N.Y.S.3d 913

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

176 A.D.3d 1573

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

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent mother appeals from an order granting petitioner father sole legal and physical custody of the subject child. Contrary to the mother's contention, we conclude that the father established the requisite change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether the existing custody arrangement was in the best interests of the child. It is well settled that "the continued deterioration of the parties' relationship is a significant change in circumstances justifying a change in custody" ( Matter of Gaudette v. Gaudette, 262 A.D.2d 804, 805, 691 N.Y.S.2d 681 [3d Dept. 1999], lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 790, 700 N.Y.S.2d 421, 722 N.E.2d 501 [1999] ; see

176 A.D.3d 1574

Lauzonis v. Lauzonis, 120 A.D.3d 922, 924, 992 N.Y.S.2d 586 [4th Dept. 2014] ). Here, the evidence at the hearing established that "the parties have an acrimonious relationship and are not able to communicate effectively with respect to the needs and activities of their child[ ], and it is well settled that joint custody is not feasible under those circumstances" ( Leonard v. Leonard, 109 A.D.3d 126, 128, 968 N.Y.S.2d 762 [4th Dept. 2013] )....