Leon T. v. Marie J.

• Decision Date: 29 October 2015
• Docket Number: 16025.
• Citation: 18 N.Y.S.3d 334 (Mem),2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07921,132 A.D.3d 602
• Parties: In re LEON T., Petitioner–Respondent, v. MARIE J., Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

132 A.D.3d 602
18 N.Y.S.3d 334 (Mem)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07921

In re LEON T., Petitioner–Respondent
v.
MARIE J., Respondent–Appellant.

16025.

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

Oct. 29, 2015.

Bruce A. Young, New York, for appellant.

Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for respondent.

Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, attorney for the child.

Opinion

132 A.D.3d 602

Order, Family Court, New York County (Marva A. Burnett, Referee), entered on or about June 16, 2014, which, after a hearing, granted the petition for modification of an order of visitation to provide for expanded and overnight visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that it is in the child's best interest to modify the prior visitation order and award petitioner father increased visitation has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Michael B. v. Dolores C., 113 A.D.3d 517, 979 N.Y.S.2d 53 [1st Dept.2014] ). The record demonstrates a change of circumstances after the prior visitation order was entered into based on the parties' stipulation (see Matter of Luis F. v. Dayhana D., 109 A.D.3d 731, 971 N.Y.S.2d 292 [1st Dept.2013] ). Respondent mother failed to comply with the agreed schedule for visitation, petitioner moved to a home in Pennsylvania, and the teenaged child expressed a strong desire to spend more time with her father and to stay at his new home overnight (see Matter of Miguel Angel N. v. Tanya Lynn A., 131 A.D.3d 425, 14 N.Y.S.3d 693 [1st Dept.2015] ; Tirschwell v. Beiter, 295 A.D.2d 266, 743 N.Y.S.2d 864 [1st Dept.2002] ). At the court's direction, petitioner's home was inspected by a social worker, who found it to be safe and appropriate for overnight visitation.

132 A.D.3d 603

We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

GONZALEZ, P.J., FRIEDMAN, GISCHE, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.