| Matter of Marriott v Hernandez |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07669 [55 AD3d 613] |
| October 7, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Danton Marriott,Respondent-Appellant, v Amee L. Hernandez, Appellant-Respondent.(Proceeding No. 1.) Inthe Matter of Amee L. Hernandez, Appellant-Respondent, v Danton Marriott, Respondent-Appellant.(Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Joseph A. Solow, Hauppauge, N.Y., for respondent-appellant. Janis M. Noto, Bay Shore, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, aslimited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Boggio, R.), datedMay 31, 2007, as, after a hearing, denied her petition to modify a prior custody order of the same courtdated June 7, 2005, awarding the parties joint custody of their children, so as to award her solecustody of the children, and the father cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the sameorder dated May 31, 2007, as denied his petition to modify the prior custody order to award him solecustody of the children.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
"In determining whether a custody agreement should be modified, the paramount issue before thecourt is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a modification of custody is in the best interestof the children" (Matter of Johnson v Johnson, 309 AD2d 750, 751 [2003]; see Matter of Honeywell [*2]v Honeywell, 39 AD3d 857, 858 [2007]; Teuschler vTeuschler, 242 AD2d 289, 290 [1997]).
Since a trial court's determination with respect to the issue of child custody involves an assessmentof the parties' credibility, character, and temperament, great deference is to be accorded the court'sfindings, which will not be disturbed unless lacking a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Battista v Fasano, 41 AD3d712, 713 [2007]; Matter of Johnson v Johnson, 309 AD2d at 751; Darema-Rogers vRogers, 199 AD2d 456, 457 [1993]; Kuncman v Kuncman, 188 AD2d 517, 518[1992]).
Here, while it is clear that there is antagonism between the parties, it is also apparent, based on thenonparty witnesses' testimony, that both parties generally behave appropriately with the children, andthat the children, as observed and as they expressed in their in-camera interviews, are equally attachedto both parents. Under these circumstances, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for theFamily Court's finding that the best interests of the children would be served by continuing joint custody(see Teuschler v Teuschler, 242 AD2d 289 [1997]; Janecka v Franklin, 131 AD2d436 [1987]; cf. Braiman v Braiman, 44 NY2d 584 [1978]). We note that the Family Court'sdetermination is supported by the position taken by the attorney for the children (see Matter of Gartmond v Conway, 40AD3d 1094, 1095 [2007]; Matter ofPowell v Blumenthal, 35 AD3d 615, 617 [2006]; Matter of Perez v Montanez, 31 AD3d 565, 566 [2006]), who appearsto have had a longstanding familiarity with the parties and children. Mastro, J.P., Lifson, Carni and Eng,JJ., concur.