| Matter of Little v Renz |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01799 [71 AD3d 677] |
| March 2, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Frederick James Little,Appellant, v Sandye Fern Renz, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter ofSandye Fern Renz, Respondent, v Frederick James Little, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In theMatter of Frederick James Little, Appellant, v Sandye Fern Renz, Respondent. (Proceeding No.3.) |
—[*1] Sandye Fern Renz, Brooklyn, N.Y., respondent pro se. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Heather L. Kalachman and Barbara H. Dildine ofcounsel), attorney for the child.
In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, and a relatedfamily offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals (1), aslimited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearl, J.),dated April 15, 2008, as, after a hearing, denied his petition for joint custody of the parties' childand granted the mother's petition for sole custody, and (2) from an order of the same court datedMay 27, 2008, which, after a hearing, dismissed, with prejudice, his family offense petition.
Ordered that the order dated April 15, 2008, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, withoutcosts or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated May 27, 2008, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality ofthe circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of LouisM. v Administration for Children's Servs., 69 AD3d 633 [2010]). Among the [*2]factors to be considered in reaching a determination that promotesthe child's best interests are the original placement of the child, the length of that placement, andthe relative fitness of the parents (seeMatter of Larkin v White, 64 AD3d 707, 708 [2009]). Moreover, inasmuch as custodydeterminations depend in large part on an assessment of the character and credibility of theparties and witnesses, the hearing court's findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a soundand substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173; Matter of Louis M. v Administration forChildren's Servs., 69 AD3d 633 [2010]). Here, the Family Court's determination toaward sole custody of the parties' child to the mother, with whom the child has lived her entirelife, has a sound and substantial basis in the record. Thus, that determination will not bedisturbed.
We find no reason to disturb the Family Court's determination that the father failed to provethe allegations in his family offense petition by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Khaykin v Kanayeva, 47AD3d 817, 818 [2008]). Covello, J.P., Miller, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.