| Matter of Francis v Cox |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09992 [57 AD3d 776] |
| December 16, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Morton C. Francis,Respondent, v Ayanna-Abena Cox, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter ofAyanna-Abena Cox, Appellant, v Morton C. Francis, Respondent. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1] Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine of counsel), attorney for thechild.
In two related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the motherappeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner,J.), dated August 1, 2007, as, after a hearing, granted the father's petition to modify a prior custodyorder of the same court dated July 26, 2001, awarding the parties joint custody of their child, so as toaward him sole custody of the subject child, and denied her cross petition for the same relief.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Custody determinations depend to a great extent upon the hearing court's assessment of thecredibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties. Where, ashere, a hearing court has conducted a complete evidentiary hearing, its finding must be accorded greatweight, and its award of custody will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in therecord (see Matter of Manfredo v Manfredo,53 AD3d 498, 499-500 [2008]; Matter of Ganzenmuller v Rivera, 40 AD3d 756, 757 [2007]; Matter of Brian S. v Stephanie P., 34 AD3d685, 686 [2006]; [*2]Matter of Shehata v Shehata, 31 AD3d 773, 774 [2006]).
Here, the Family Court properly determined that joint custody of the child was no longer a viableoption due to the history of animosity between the parties (see Braiman v Braiman, 44 NY2d584, 587 [1978]; Matter of Tavarez vMusse, 31 AD3d 458 [2006]; Matter of Rosario WW. v Ellen WW., 309 AD2d984, 985 [2003]; Palumbo v Palumbo, 292 AD2d 358, 360 [2002]).
Contrary to the mother's contention, there is a sound basis in the record for the Family Court'sdetermination that an award of sole custody to the father was in the child's best interest. The attorneyfor the child took the position that the father was better able to provide for the child's long-term care.The hearing court weighed the appropriate factors and properly awarded custody to the father, whohad demonstrated over the course of the child's life that he was better able to provide a stableenvironment for the child (see Matter ofShehata v Shehata, 31 AD3d 773, 774 [2006]; Cuccurullo v Cuccurullo, 21 AD3d 983, 984 [2005]; Kuncman vKuncman, 188 AD2d 517, 518 [1992]). Spolzino, J.P., Carni, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.