| Matter of Nagi T. v Magdia T. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00767 [48 AD3d 1061] |
| February 1, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Nagi T., Respondent, v Magdia T., Also Known asMagdia A., Appellant. In the Matter of Magdia A., Appellant, v Nagi T.,Respondent. |
—[*1] John Patrick Pieri, Buffalo, for petitioner-respondent and respondent-respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Carter, J.), entered March28, 2007 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted sole custodyof the parties' children to petitioner-respondent with visitation to respondent-petitioner.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent-petitioner mother appeals from an order grantingpetitioner-respondent father sole custody of their two children with visitation to the mother.Contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court's determination that it was in the best interestsof the children to be placed in the father's custody has a sound and substantial basis in the record,despite the fact that the mother had been the primary caregiver of the children for most of theirlives (see generally Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211-212 [1992]). The evidence adducedat the hearing established that the father was able to provide the children with a stable home andthat the mother was unable to support herself and relied on her father to pay her living expenses(see Matter of Hernandez v Sherwood, 254 AD2d 574, 575 [1998]; Matter ofHotaling v Hotaling, 249 AD2d 707, 708-709 [1998]). In addition, the mother had previouslymoved the children from Buffalo to New York City and Yemen, indicating that the father is moreinclined than the mother to permit the children maximum access to the other parent (see Matter of Angel M.S. v ThomasJ.S., 41 AD3d 1227 [2007]). Finally, we reject the contention of the mother that she wasdenied effective assistance of counsel. The mother failed to demonstrate that she was prejudicedby the alleged deficiencies in her attorney's performance and, indeed, the record reflects that herattorney "provided meaningful and competent representation through the calling of witnesses,vigorous cross-[*2]examination, appropriate objections andsubmission of proposed findings of fact following the hearing" (Matter of Whitley v Leonard, 5 AD3d825, 827 [2004]; see Matter ofKatherine D. v Lawrence D., 32 AD3d 1350, 1352 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d717 [2006]). Present—Smith, J.P., Lunn, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.