| Pierre-Paul v Boursiquot |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04979 [74 AD3d 935] |
| June 8, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Silvera Pierre-Paul, Respondent, v Marie M. Boursiquot,Appellant. |
—[*1]
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant mother appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lebowitz, J.), enteredDecember 17, 2008, as upon a decision of the same court dated February 4, 2008, made after anonjury trial, awarded the plaintiff father sole custody of the parties' children, and awarded herthe sum of only $220 per week in maintenance for a period of 18 months.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
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 children (see Eschbach v Eschbach,56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter ofLittle v Renz, 71 AD3d 677 [2010]; Matter of Louis M. v Administration for Children's Servs., 69 AD3d633 [2010]). Among the factors to be considered in reaching a determination that promotesthe children's best interests are the original placement of the child, the length of that placement,and the relative fitness of the parents (see Matter of Little v Renz, 71 AD3d 677 [2010]; Matter of Larkin v White, 64 AD3d707, 708 [2009]). Moreover, inasmuch as custody determinations depend in large part on anassessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, the hearing court'sfindings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (seeEschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173; Matter of Little v Renz, 71 AD3d 677 [2010]; Matter of Louis M. v Administration forChildren's Servs., 69 AD3d 633 [2010]). Here, the Supreme Court's determination toaward sole custody of the parties' children to the father has a sound and substantial basis in therecord. Thus, that determination will not be disturbed.
The mother's contention that the Supreme Court failed to consider her allegations ofdomestic violence is without merit. Where allegations of domestic violence are proven by apreponderance of the evidence, "the court must consider the effect of such domestic violenceupon the best interests of the child[ren]" (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1] [a]; see Matter of Khaykin v Kanayeva, 47AD3d 817, 818 [2008]; Matter ofRodriguez v Guerra, 28 AD3d 775, 776 [2006]; Matter of Moreno v Cruz, 24 AD3d 780, [*2]781 [2005]). Here, however, the Supreme Court determined that themother's allegations were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The father deniedthe mother's allegations, and the Supreme Court resolved the conflicting testimony in favor ofthe father. Based on the record, there is no basis to disturb the Supreme Court's credibilitydetermination.
"[T]he amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion ofthe trial court, and every case must be determined on its own unique facts" (Wortman v Wortman, 11 AD3d604, 606 [2004]; see Grumet vGrumet, 37 AD3d 534, 535 [2007]). The court must consider the factors enumerated inDomestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a), which include the predivorce standard of livingof the parties, the income and property of the parties, the distribution of property, the duration ofthe marriage, the present and future earning capacity of the parties, the ability of the partyseeking maintenance to be self-supporting, and the reduced or lost earning capacity of the partyseeking maintenance (see Meccariello vMeccariello, 46 AD3d 640, 641-642 [2007]; Griggs v Griggs, 44 AD3d 710, 711-712 [2007]). Here,considering the relevant factors, the award in the sum of $220 per week for a period of 18months was appropriate. Fisher, J.P., Covello, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.