| Matter of McDonough v McDonough |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04395 [73 AD3d 1067] |
| May 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Tracy Jon McDonough,Appellant-Respondent, v Denise Ortega McDonough,Respondent-Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, aslimited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lechtrecker,Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 21, 2009, as, upon awarding him residential custody of the subjectchildren, directed him to transport the subject children to Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan forvisitation with the mother, and the mother cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much ofthe same order as awarded the father residential custody of the subject children.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costsor disbursements.
"The essential consideration in any custody controversy is the best interests of the child" (Matter of Dwyer-Hayde v Forcier, 67AD3d 1011, 1011 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 703 [2010]). "In determining the bestinterests of the child, the court must evaluate the totality of [the] circumstances" (Nicholas T. v Christine T., 42 AD3d526, 527 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]). "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" (Matter of Elliott v Felder, 69 AD3d623 [2010]). "Along with the factors considered in any custody determination, the courtmust also consider the stability and continuity afforded by maintaining the present arrangement"(Matter of Lightbody v Lightbody,42 AD3d 537, 537-538 [2007]). Moreover, " 'where a hearing court has conducted acomplete evidentiary hearing, its finding must be accorded great weight, and its grant of custodywill not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record' " (Matter ofDwyer-Hayde v Forcier, 67 AD3d at 1011, quoting Nicholas T. v Christine T., 42AD3d at 527; Matter of Brian S. vStephanie P., 34 AD3d 685 [2006]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167,173 [1982]).[*2]
Contrary to the mother's contention, there is soundsupport in the record for the determination that an award of residential custody to the father wasin the children's best interests (see Matter of Elliott v Felder, 69 AD3d at 623; Matterof Dwyer-Hayde v Forcier, 67 AD3d at 1011; Matter of Lightbody v Lightbody, 42AD3d at 537-538). The father testified as to the arrangements he had made for the children's caresince the mother left the household. Further, the evidence indicated that the children continued tolive in the same house near their friends and to attend the only school they ever had attended, inwhich they were doing well. Under these circumstances, the best interests of the children wouldbest be served by preserving the status quo and awarding the father residential custody of thesubject children (see Matter of Larkin vWhite, 64 AD3d 707, 709 [2009]).
There was also a sound and substantial basis in the record for the determination to continuethe visitation arrangement, whereby the father transports the children from his home in SuffolkCounty to Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan for their twice-monthly visitation with the mother,who resides in New York City.
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Hall and Lott,JJ., concur.