Matter of Elliott v Felder
2010 NY Slip Op 00146 [69 AD3d 623]
January 5, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 10, 2010


In the Matter of Elizabeth C. Elliott, Appellant,
v
TerrenceJ. Felder, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Terrence J. Felder, Respondent, vElizabeth C. Elliott, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[*1]Ryan & Henderson, P.C., Carle Place, N.Y. (Nicole A. Casale and Robert L. Ryan, Jr.,of counsel), for appellant.

James T. Murphy, Floral Park, N.Y. (Leslie W. Rubin of counsel), for respondent.

Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the motherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eisman, J.), dated August 8, 2008,which, after a hearing, in effect, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the parties' childand denied her petition for sole custody of the parties' child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child(see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). Factors to be considered indetermining the child's best interests include the quality of the home environment and theparental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child, the ability of each parent to providefor the child's emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of eachparent to provide for the child, the relative fitness of the respective parents, and the effect anaward of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent(id. at 171-172; see Matter ofRoldan v Nieves, 51 AD3d 803, 805 [2008]). Since a custody determination necessarilydepends to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties andwitnesses, deference is accorded the court's findings (see Cuccurullo v Cuccurullo, 21 AD3d 983, 984 [2005]).Therefore, its findings should not be set aside unless they lack a sound and substantial basis inthe record (see Matter of Nikolic vIngrassia, 47 AD3d 819, 820 [2008]; Neuman v Neuman, 19 AD3d 383, 384 [2005]). Here, the FamilyCourt's credibility determination, to which we accord great deference on appeal, has a sound andsubstantial basis in the record. Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Belen and Austin, 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.