Matter of Garcia v Perez
2008 NY Slip Op 01759 [48 AD3d 812]
February 26, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 16, 2008


In the Matter of Loida Garcia, Also Known as Loida Cabrera,Appellant,
v
Miguel Perez, Respondent.

[*1]Zvi Ostrin, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

Robert S. Modena, Bayside, N.Y., Law Guardian.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court article 6, the mother appeals from anorder of the Family Court, Queens County (Seiden, J.), dated February 7, 2006, which, after ahearing, inter alia, denied her petition to modify the temporary order of custody and awardedpermanent custody of the child to the father.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In adjudicating custody issues, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child(see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,55 NY2d 89, 94 [1982]). The Family Court's determination in a custody dispute is generallyaccorded great deference on appeal and should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound andsubstantial basis in the record, as it is based upon a firsthand assessment of the parties, theircredibility, their characters, and their temperaments (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2dat 173; Neuman v Neuman, 19 AD3d 383, 384 [2005]; Matter of Panetta v Ruddy,18 AD3d 662 [2005]).

Contrary to the mother's contentions, the Family Court considered the totality of thecircumstances in determining that the best interests of the child would be served by awardingcustody to the father, with liberal visitation granted to the mother (see Friederwitzer vFriederwitzer, 55 NY2d at 93-95). We find no basis to disturb the award of custody to thefather. That determination [*2]is supported by the record,including the testimony of the parties and the opinion of the court-appointed psychologist. Sincethe Family Court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, it will not bedisturbed (see Matter of Perez v Montanez, 31 AD3d 565 [2006]; Matter of Ring vRing, 15 AD3d 406, 407 [2005]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.