Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Matter of Damiano v. Guzzi
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 48Docket: 523943
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; January 3, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the Matter of Damiano v. Guzzi, the Appellate Division of the Third Department affirmed a Family Court order that modified a prior custody arrangement between unmarried parents, Frederick M. Damiano (father) and Ann Marie Guzzi (mother), regarding their daughter born in 2013. Initially, the mother had sole legal and physical custody, granted in 2014. The father filed modification petitions in April 2016, citing impaired visitation due to communication issues with the mother and her boyfriend, and later obtained temporary custody after the mother was arrested for drug-related charges. The mother's subsequent petition alleged the father's unsavory conduct, seeking a return of custody. After a hearing, Family Court awarded joint legal custody to both parents, with primary physical placement to the father, and set conditions for the mother's parenting time based on a drug test result. The appellate court found that the father demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient for a best interests analysis, particularly due to the mother's legal troubles and the father's communication difficulties. The court examined factors such as each parent's fitness, stability, past performance, and the home environment, noting concerns regarding both parents. Ultimately, the father was deemed better positioned to provide stability for the child, as he had support from his grandmother and was actively maintaining his living situation while searching for stable employment, unlike the mother, who was unemployed and facing legal uncertainties. Family Court expressed significant skepticism towards the mother's testimony, deeming her claims "entirely incredible," particularly regarding her inability to recall fundamental details related to her legal issues. The court's assessment of her credibility was given considerable weight, leading to the conclusion that its custody determination had a robust and substantial foundation in the record. The ruling is affirmed without costs. Additionally, the mother did not contest the temporary custody order, while the child's attorney's challenge to it was not considered due to the absence of an appeal. Furthermore, the establishment of the permanent custody order rendered any objections to the temporary order moot.