| Matter of Rudolph v Armstead |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03523 [61 AD3d 979] |
| April 28, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Vera Rudolph,Respondent-Appellant, v Larry Armstead,Appellant-Respondent. |
—[*1] Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Arza Feldman of counsel), for respondent-appellant. Hal B. Greenwald, Yonkers, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a child custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, thefather appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an amended order of the Family Court,Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), entered April 15, 2008, as, after a hearing, denied that branch ofhis cross petition which was, in effect, to modify a prior order of the same court entered July 25,2006, awarding the mother sole legal custody of the subject child so as to transfer sole legalcustody of the subject child to him, and the mother cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from somuch of the same order as granted that branch of the father's cross petition which was, in effect,for makeup visitation.
Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; andit is further,
Ordered that the amended order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
"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, as here, a hearing court has conducted a complete evidentiary hearing, its finding mustbe accorded great weight, [*2]and its award of custody will notbe disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Francis v Cox, 57 AD3d776, 776-777 [2008]; Matter ofManfredo v Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498, 499-500 [2008]). Contrary to the father'scontention, the Family Court had a sound and substantial basis in the record to support itsdetermination that awarding him sole legal custody of the subject child was not in the child's bestinterest.
The mother's cross appeal must be dismissed as academic because the challenged makeupvisits were scheduled to take place in 2008. Fisher, J.P., Miller, Chambers and Austin, JJ.,concur.