| Matter of Julie v Wills |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03933 [73 AD3d 777] |
| May 4, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Lovell Julie, Respondent, v Ganet N.Wills, Appellant. |
—[*1] Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Anne Glatz and Barbara H. Dildine of counsel),attorney for the child.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), dated September 22, 2008,which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the subject child.
Ordered that the order 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]). "Factors to beconsidered in determining the child's best interests include the quality of the home environmentand the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child, the ability of each parent toprovide for the child's emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability ofeach parent to provide for the child, the relative fitness of the respective parents, and the effectan award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent"(Matter of Elliott v Felder, 69AD3d 623, 623 [2010], citing Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 171-172). Anycustody determination depends 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.Therefore, its findings are accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack asound and substantial basis in the record (see Trinagel v Boyar, 70 AD3d 816 [2010]). Moreover, wheredomestic violence is alleged, the court must consider the effect of such domestic violence uponthe child (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1]; Matter of Moreno v Cruz, 24 AD3d780, 781 [2005]).
Upon weighing the appropriate factors, the Family Court correctly determined that the bestinterests of the child would be served by awarding custody to the father (see Matter ofMoreno v Cruz, 24 AD3d at 781). Although the mother accused the father of being theaggressor in certain altercations they had, he denied those allegations, and the Family Courtresolved the conflicting testimony in favor of the father. On this record, there is no basis todisturb the Family Court's credibility determination (see Trinagel v Boyar, 70 AD3d 816 [2010]; Matter of Morenov Cruz, 24 AD3d at 781). Moreover, the mother [*2]admittedto certain allegations of her own violent behavior against the father. Evidence of the mother'sacts of domestic violence demonstrates that she possesses a character which is "ill-suited to thedifficult task of providing her young child with moral and intellectual guidance" (Matter ofMoreno v Cruz, 24 AD3d at 781; see Matter of Meyers v Sheehan, 62 AD3d 802, 803 [2009]).Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.