| Matter of Thayer v Thayer |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08282 [67 AD3d 1358] |
| November 13, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Rodney J. Thayer, Respondent, v RosemaryThayer, Appellant. In the Matter of Rosemary Thayer, Appellant, v Rodney J. Thayer,Respondent. In the Matter of Rodney J. Thayer, Respondent, v Rosemary Thayer, Appellant. Inthe Matter of Rosemary Thayer, Appellant, v Rodney J. Thayer,Respondent. |
—[*1] Peter J. DiGiorgio, Jr., Law Guardian, Utica, for Autumn L.T. and Rodney J.T., Jr. Abbie Goldbas, Law Guardian, Utica, for Ashley T. and Nicholas T.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Randal B. Caldwell, J.), enteredMay 5, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted theparties joint custody of their four children, with primary physical residence withpetitioner-respondent, Rodney J. Thayer.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without [*2]costs.
Memorandum: Respondent-petitioner mother appeals from an order granting the parties jointcustody of their four children, with primary physical residence with petitioner-respondent fatherand visitation to the mother. Following a lengthy hearing, Family Court determined that thefather would provide greater stability to the children and that it would be in their best interests toreside together with him. That determination, based in large part upon the court's firsthandassessment of the character and credibility of the parties, is entitled to great deference (seeMatter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD2d 824 [2002]). We decline to disturb that determination,inasmuch as it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Krug v Krug, 55 AD3d1373 [2008]).
The mother failed to preserve for our review her contentions with respect to the taperecordings made by the father (seegenerally Matter of Graham v Thering, 55 AD3d 1319 [2008], lv denied 11NY3d 714 [2008]). In any event, the record establishes that the tape recordings did not influencethe court's determination, and thus any error with respect thereto is harmless (see generallyid.; Matter of Mathieu vGrosser, 5 AD3d 1069 [2004]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Green, Pine andGorski, JJ.