| McVeigh v Curry |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04968 [74 AD3d 915] |
| June 8, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Patricia McVeigh, Respondent, v Warren Curry,Appellant. |
—[*1] Ellen B. Holtzman, Nanuet, N.Y. (Meryl R. Neuren of counsel), for respondent. Anne Gilleece, Chestnut Ridge, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant father appeals from aninterlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated September18, 2009, which, upon a decision of the same court dated August 14, 2009, made after a nonjurytrial, awarded sole custody of the parties' children to the plaintiff mother.
Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondent.
The essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of thechildren (see Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94 [1982]; Mohen v Mohen, 53 AD3d 471,472 [2008]). "Factors to be considered 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' " (Kaplan v Kaplan, 21 AD3d 993,994-995 [2005], quoting Miller v Pipia, 297 AD2d 362, 364 [2002]).
Here, the Supreme Court's determination to award sole custody of the parties' children to themother has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and will not be disturbed (see Salvatore v Salvatore, 68 AD3d966, 967 [2009]; Matter ofCobourne v James, 35 AD3d 734 [2006]). There is sufficient evidence in the record tosupport the Supreme Court's conclusion that the mother would be the better party to foster apositive relationship between the children and the other parent (see Bains v Bains, 308AD2d 557, 558-559 [2003]).
Regarding the father's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, "[i]n thecontext of civil litigation, a claim of ineffective assistance will not be entertained, absentextraordinary circumstances" (Salvatore v Salvatore, 68 AD3d at 967; see Galil, LLC v Scott, 61 AD3d820 [2009]; Mendoza v PlazaHomes, LLC, 55 AD3d 692, 693 [2008]). No such extraordinary circumstances arepresent here.[*2]
The father's remaining contentions are either not properlybefore this Court or without merit. Dillon, J.P., Miller, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.