| Matter of Langlaise v Sookhan |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01545 [48 AD3d 685] |
| February 19, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Nicole Langlaise, Respondent, v JacqueseSookhan, Appellant. |
—[*1] Carol Sherman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine of counsel), Law Guardian.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearl, J.), dated May 23, 2006, which, after ahearing, inter alia, granted the mother's petition for sole custody of the parties' child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child(see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Friederwitzer vFriederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982]). The hearing court must consider the totality of thecircumstances, and consider, among other things, the relative fitness of the parents, the quality ofthe respective home environments, the quality of parental guidance, and the ability of each parentto provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development (see Vinciguerra vVinciguerra, 294 AD2d 565 [2002]). Since a custody determination depends to a great extentupon an assessment of the character and credibility of parties and witnesses (see Eschbach vEschbach, 56 NY2d at 174), the determination will not be disturbed unless it lacks a soundand substantial basis in the record (see Vinciguerra v Vinciguerra, 294 AD2d at 566).
Here, the Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served byawarding the mother sole custody, which was consistent with the recommendation of thecourt-appointed forensic evaluator (see Miller v Pipia, 297 AD2d 362, 365 [2002]), has asound and substantial basis in the record, and should not be disturbed (see Vinciguerra vVinciguerra, 294 AD2d at 566). While the child, who was 12 years old at the time of thehearing, voiced a desire to live with the father, a child's express wishes are not determinative and,under the circumstances, the [*2]court properly declined to placegreat weight on the child's stated preference (see Matter of Inverary v Curtis, 150 AD2d684, 685 [1989]). Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Covello and Carni, JJ., concur.