| Matter of Carrasquillo v Cora |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01983 [60 AD3d 852] |
| March 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jose Carrasquillo, Respondent, v Maria S.Cora, Appellant. (And a Related Proceeding.) |
—[*1] Joan L. Beranbaum, New York, N.Y. (Louisa Floyd of counsel), for respondent. Steven P. Forbes, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appealsfrom so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Negron, Ct. Atty. Ref.), datedMarch 27, 2008, as, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the subjectchild.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Any court in considering questions of child custody must make every effort to determinewhat is in the best interests of the child, and what will best promote the child's welfare andhappiness (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Domestic RelationsLaw § 70 [a]; Zafran v Zafran, 306 AD2d 468, 469 [2003]). The court must lookat the totality of circumstances and "[f]actors to be considered in determining those best interestsinclude the parental guidance provided by the custodial parent, each parent's ability to providefor the child's emotional and intellectual development, each parent's ability to provide for thechild financially, the relative fitness of each parent, and the effect an award of custody to oneparent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent" (Matter of Berrouet v Greaves, 35AD3d 460, 461 [2006]; see Zafran v Zafran, 306 AD2d at 469). "Since the FamilyCourt's custody determination is largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibility of thewitnesses and upon the [*2]character, temperament, and sincerityof the parents, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantialbasis in the record" (Matter of Dobbins v Vartabedian, 304 AD2d 665, 666 [2003]).
Here, the Family Court's award of sole custody to the father has a sound and substantial basisin the record (see Matter of Dobbins v Vartabedian, 304 AD2d at 666). The FamilyCourt's determination that the father was the more fit custodian of the child was based on itsassessment of the credibility of the parties and took into account, inter alia, the recommendationsof the forensic evaluator (see Matter ofTurnure v Turnure, 37 AD3d 727, 728 [2007]; Matter of Berrouet v Greaves, 35 AD3d 460 [2006]; Mattter ofDobbins v Vartabedian, 304 AD2d at 666). Furthermore, joint custody would not have beenappropriate here as the parties "have demonstrated an inability to cooperate on mattersconcerning the child" (Matter of George W.S. v Donna S., 187 AD2d 657, 658-659[1992]; see Matter of Kelly vHickman, 44 AD3d 941, 941-942 [2007]; Trolf v Trolf, 126 AD2d 544 [1987]).Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Miller and Dickerson, JJ., concur.