| Matter of Haimovici v Haimovici |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04389 [73 AD3d 1058] |
| May 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Lioudmila Haimovici,Respondent, v Gabriel Haimovici, Appellant. Sandra Stines, Nonparty Appellant.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Gabriel Haimovici, Appellant, v Lioudmila Haimovici,Respondent. Sandra Stines, Nonparty Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1]
In two related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the fatherappeals, and the attorney for the child separately appeals, as limited by their respective briefs,from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (St. George, J.), dated December5, 2008, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the mother's petition which was to award solephysical custody of the child to her and, in effect, denied that branch of the father's petitionwhich was to award sole physical custody of the child to him.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In adjudicating custody and visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered isthe best interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 174 [1982]),which requires an evaluation of the "totality of [the] circumstances" (Friederwitzer vFriederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Since the FamilyCourt's custody determination is largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibility of thewitnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, that determinationshould not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matterof Dobbins v Vartabedian, 304 AD2d 665, 666 [2003]).
Here, the Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served byawarding the mother sole physical custody, which was consistent with the recommendation ofthe court-[*2]appointed forensic psychologist, has a sound andsubstantial basis in the record and, thus, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Langlaise v Sookhan, 48AD3d 685, 685-686 [2008]; seealso Matter of Meyers v Sheehan, 62 AD3d 802, 803 [2009]). While the determinationwas not consistent with the position of the attorney for the child, that position, although entitledto some weight, was not dispositive (seeMatter of Kozlowski v Mangialino, 36 AD3d 916, 917 [2007]). Mastro, J.P., Covello,Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.