Matter of Jara v Rivera
2009 NY Slip Op 01649 [60 AD3d 680]
March 3, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 6, 2009


54—In the Matter of George Jara,Respondent,
v
Nicole Rivera, Appellant.

[*1]William E. Penny, Scarsdale, N.Y., for appellant.

Lisa F. Colin, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.

Thomas F. Fanelli, Jr., White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child Chelsea Jara.

Darren DeUrso, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child Jaden Jara.

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, WestchesterCounty (Devlin, J.), dated December 28, 2007, as, after a hearing, granted the father's petition tomodify a prior custody order of the same court to award him sole custody of the parties' children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The essential consideration in any custody controversy is the best interests of the child(see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Kaplan v Kaplan, 21 AD3d 993,[*2]994 [2005]). "Because any custody determination necessarilydepends to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties andwitnesses, great deference is accorded the court's findings" (Matter of Shehata v Shehata, 31 AD3d 773, 774 [2006]). "Thus,where a hearing court has conducted a complete evidentiary hearing, its finding must beaccorded great weight, and its award of custody will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound andsubstantial basis in the record" (Matterof Manfredo v Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498, 499-500 [2008]; see Matter of Ganzenmuller v Rivera,40 AD3d 756 [2007]; Matter of Shehata v Shehata, 31 AD3d at 774).

Contrary to the mother's contention, there is a sound basis in the record for the FamilyCourt's determination that an award of sole custody to the father is in the children's best interest.

The mother was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see Matter of James P., 17 AD3d733 [2005]; Matter of Whitley vLeonard, 5 AD3d 825, 827 [2004]; Matter of Thompson v Gibeault, 305 AD2d873, 875 [2003]). Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Ritter and Miller, 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.