| Matter of McGee v Patron |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00214 [58 AD3d 633] |
| January 13, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Tony L. McGee, Respondent, v CarolynPatron, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Carolyn Patron, Appellant, v Tony L.McGee, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Francine H. Moss, Ronkonkoma, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In 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, Suffolk County(Lynaugh, J.), dated December 5, 2007, as, after a hearing, granted the father's petition to modifya prior custody order of the same court (James, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated May 18, 2000, awardingher sole custody of the parties' child, so as to award him sole custody of the subject child, anddismissed her petition for permission to relocate to Maryland with the subject child.
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 (see Matter of Brian S. v Stephanie P.,34 AD3d 685, 686 [2006]; Matter of James v Hickey, 6 AD3d 536, 537 [2004]). Adetermination of custody should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis inthe record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]). A court, in consideringquestions of child custody, must determine "what is for the best interest of the child" (DomesticRelations Law § 70 [a]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]).[*2]
The hearing court may order a change in custody if thetotality of the circumstances warrants a modification in the best interests of the child (seeEschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of Brian S. v Stephanie P., 34 AD3d 685, 686 [2006]). TheFamily Court's determination that the best interests of the child would be served by a change ofcustody to the father was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and should notbe disturbed (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of Timosa v Chase, 21 AD3d1115, 1116 [2005]).
The mother's remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy and Eng,JJ., concur.