G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…since any custody determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless…
at p. 1188
✓
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Fekete-Markovits v. Markovits
An existing visitation order may be modified only “upon a showing that there has been a subsequent change of circumstances and modification is required” to ensure the best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances (Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]; see Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380 [2004]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Ottaviano v Ippolito, 132 AD3d 681, 682 [2015]; Matter of Boggio v Boggio, 96 AD3d 834, 835 [2012]; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Hargrove v. Langenau
Since the Family Court’s determination with respect to custody and visitation depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Saldana v Lopresti, 133 AD3d 669, 670 [2015]; Matter of Mack v Kass, 115 AD3d 748, 749 [2014]; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Solomon v. Mellion
“Since weighing the factors relevant to any custody determination requires an evaluation of the credibility and sincerity of the parties involved, the hearing court’s findings are accorded deference, and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Jackson v Coleman, 94 AD3d 762, 763 [2012]; see Matter of Buxenbaum v Fulmer, 82 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2011]; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Saldana v. Lopresti
The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Vujanic v Petrovic, 125 AD3d *670 984 [2015]). “'Since any custody determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of Mack v Kass, 115 AD3d at 749 , quoting…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Ottaviano v. Ippolito
The paramount concern in any visitation determination is the best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances (see Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d at 380-381 ; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 96 [1982]; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of DeMille v. Pizzo
The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]). “ ‘Since any custody determination depends to a very great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great respect and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record’” (Matter of Hixenbaugh v Hixenbaugh, 111 AD3d…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Florio v. Niven
The best interests of the child herein must be determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Holmes v. Holmes
Since any visitation determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of O’Loughlin v Sweetland, 98 AD3d 983 , 984 [2012]; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]; Matter of Nell v Nell, 87 AD3d 541, 542 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Holmes v. Holmes
Since any visitation determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of O’Loughlin v Sweetland, 98 AD3d 983 , 984 [2012]; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]; Matter of Nell v Nell, 87 AD3d 541, 542 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mack v. Kass
“Since any custody determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mack v. Kass
“Since any custody determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hixenbaugh v. Hixenbaugh
“The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d at 677 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Jackson v Coleman, 94 AD3d 762, 763 [2012]; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hixenbaugh v. Hixenbaugh
“The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d at 677 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Jackson v Coleman, 94 AD3d 762, 763 [2012]; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Angelina L.C. Nassau County Department of Social Services
The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 171 ; Matter of Griffin v Nikiea Moore-James, 104 AD3d 685 [2013]; Matter of Sidorowicz v Sidorowicz, 101 AD3d 737 [2012]). “ ‘Since any custody determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record�…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonnard v. Guido
The court also granted that branch of the mother’s motion which was for an award of attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 “ ‘Since any custody determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of O’Loughlin v Sweetland, 98 AD3d 983 , 984 [2012], quoting Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 A…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonnard v. Guido
The court also granted that branch of the mother’s motion which was for an award of attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 “ ‘Since any custody determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of O’Loughlin v Sweetland, 98 AD3d 983 , 984 [2012], quoting Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 A…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Griffin v. Moore-James
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements. “ ‘Since any custody determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of O’Loughlin v Sweetland, 98 AD3d 983 , 984 [2012], quoting Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]; see Matter of Nell v Nell, 87 AD3d 541, 542 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Griffin v. Moore-James
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements. “ ‘Since any custody determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of O’Loughlin v Sweetland, 98 AD3d 983 , 984 [2012], quoting Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]; see Matter of Nell v Nell, 87 AD3d 541, 542 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. Pignataro
“ ‘In order to modify an existing custody or visitation arrangement, there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child’ ” (Matter of Peralta v Irrizary, 76 AD3d 561 , 562 [2010], quoting Matter of Arduino v Ayuso, 70 AD3d 682, 682 [2010]). “ ‘The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances’ ” (Matter of Jackson v Coleman, 94 AD3d 762 , 763 [2012], quoting Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]; see Matter of Solovay v …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. Pignataro
“ ‘In order to modify an existing custody or visitation arrangement, there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child’ ” (Matter of Peralta v Irrizary, 76 AD3d 561 , 562 [2010], quoting Matter of Arduino v Ayuso, 70 AD3d 682, 682 [2010]). “ ‘The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances’ ” (Matter of Jackson v Coleman, 94 AD3d 762 , 763 [2012], quoting Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]; see Matter of Solovay v …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. Coleman
Ordered that the order dated March 7, 2011, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. “ ‘Modification of an existing custody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in cir cumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child’ ” (Matter of Buxenbaum v Fulmer, 82 AD3d 1223, 1223 [2011], quoting Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8 AD3d 487, 488 [2004]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1187-1188 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pavone v. Bronson
In determining the best interests of the children, the courts must view the “totality of [the] circumstances” (Frieder witzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 96 [1982]). “ ‘Since any custody determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of Nell v Nell, 87 AD3d 541, 542 [2011], quoting Matter of Skeete v Ham…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fitje v. Fitje
An application to modify the custody and visitation provisions of a judgment that are based upon a stipulation of the parties will not be granted absent a showing of a sufficient change in circumstances from the time of the stipulation, and that the modification would be in the best interests of the children (see Matter of Deochand v Deochand, 80 AD3d 609 [2011]; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1187-1188 [2010]; Spratt v Fontana, 46 AD3d 670, 671 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Francois v. Grimm
Here, the Family Court’s award of sole legal and physical custody to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 172 ; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]; Matter of Chabotte v Faella, 77 AD3d at 750 ; Matter of Jones v Leppert, 75 AD3d 552, 553-554 [2010]; Matter of Tercjak v Tercjak, 49 AD3d 772 [2008]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Buxenbaum v. Fulmer
The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Garcia v. Fountain
“ ‘Modification of an existing custody or visitation arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child’ ” (Matter of Mazzola v Lee, 76 AD3d 531 , 531 [2010], quoting Matter of Leichter-Kessler v Kessler, 71 AD3d 1148, 1148-1149 [2010]; see Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187 [2010]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Chris Skeete
v.
Lakisha Hamilton
v.
Lakisha Hamilton
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 30, 2010.
Cited by 31 opinions | Published
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Ebrahimoff, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated May 6, 2009, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for a change in custody.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“ ‘A party seeking a change in visitation or custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing’ ” (Matter of Mazzola v Lee, 76 AD3d 531, 531 [2010], quoting Matter of LeichterKessler v Kessler, 71 AD3d 1148, 1149 [2010]; see Matter of Grant v Hunter, 64 AD3d 779 [2009]; Matter of Riedel v Riedel, 61 AD3d 979 [2009]). Contrary to the contentions of the mother and the attorney for the child, the father’s allegations were sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Vasquez-Williams v Williams, 32 AD3d 859, 860 [2006]).
“ ‘Modification of an existing custody or visitation arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a[*1188] change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child’ ” (Matter of Mazzola v Lee, 76 AD3d at 531, quoting Matter of Leichter-Kessler v Kessler, 71 AD3d at 1148-1149; see Matter of Chabotte v Faella, 77 AD3d 749 [2010]; Matter of Peralta v Irrizary, 76 AD3d 561, 562 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 714 [2010]; Matter of Balgley v Cohen, 73 AD3d 1038 [2010]). The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Chabotte v Faella, 77 AD3d 749 [2010]; Matter of Peralta v Irrizary, 76 AD3d at 562). Since any custody determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Otero v Nieves, 77 AD3d 756 [2010]). Here, the Family Court’s determination awarding custody to the father, made after a hearing and in camera interviews with the subject child, has a sound and substantial basis in the record and, accordingly, it will not be disturbed (see Matter of Chabotte v Faella, 77 AD3d 749 [2010]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.