Ordered that the order entered November 21, 2008, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
To modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Zeis v Slater, 57 AD3d 793, 794). The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances ( see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172). Deference should be accorded the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and the hearing court's custody determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Zeis v Slater, 57 AD3d at 794).
Here, the Family Court's determination that the mother failed to satisfy her burden of demonstrating a change of circumstances warranting a change of custody is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. The mother "presented no evidence of parental alienation that would justify a change in physical custody" ( Matter of Roelofsen v Tiberie, 64 AD3d 603, 604). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court's determination ( see Matter of Roelofsen v Tiberie, 64 AD3d 603; see also Matter of Chase v Matanda-Chase, 41 AD3d 475, 476; Matter of Bryant v Nazario, 306 AD2d 529).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.