| Matter of McLeod v McLeod |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00873 [59 AD3d 1011] |
| February 6, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Lysa L. McLeod, Appellant, v Jamar A. McLeod,Respondent. In the Matter of Jamar A. McLeod, Respondent, v Lysa L. McLeod,Appellant. |
—[*1] Marybeth D. Barnet, Canandaigua, for respondent-respondent and petitioner-respondent. M. Kathleen Curran, Law Guardian, Canandaigua, for Quintyn M. and Rylan M.
Appeal from an amended order of the Family Court, Ontario County (Stephen D. Aronson,J.), entered November 26, 2007 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 8.The amended order, inter alia, granted sole custody of the parties' children torespondent-petitioner, Jamar A. McLeod.
It is hereby ordered that the amended order so appealed from is unanimously affirmedwithout costs.
Memorandum: Family Court properly granted respondent-petitioner father's petition seekingsole custody of the parties' children. The court's determination following a hearing that the bestinterests of the children would be served by an award of sole custody to the father is entitled togreat deference (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173 [1982]). We will notdisturb that determination inasmuch as the record establishes that it is the product of "carefulweighing of [the] appropriate factors" (Matter of Pinkerton v Pensyl, 305 AD2d 1113,1114 [2003]), and it has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Betro v Carbone, 5 AD3d1110 [2004]; Matter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD23d 824 [2002]).
We reject the contention of petitioner-respondent mother and the Law Guardian that thecourt [*2]erred in reconsidering its order to sequester witnesses atthe hearing and, upon reconsideration, determining that it would admit the testimony of thechildren's paternal grandmother, who was present during testimony of other witnesses. Thedecision whether to sequester witnesses was within the court's discretion in the first instance(see McLean v Ryan, 157 AD2d 928, 931 [1990]), and the court retained jurisdiction toreconsider its sequestration order during the course of the hearing (see Lidge v Niagara FallsMem. Med. Ctr. [appeal No. 2], 17 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2005]). Present—Martoche,J.P., Fahey, Green, Pine and Gorski, JJ.