| Matter of McCormick v Dixon |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07938 [78 AD3d 708] |
| November 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of James McCormick, Respondent, v Miriam L.Dixon, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limitedby her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Woods, J.), enteredAugust 17, 2009, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the father's petition which was for physicalcustody of the child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
"The essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child" (Mohen v Mohen, 53 AD3d 471,472-473 [2008]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Friederwitzer vFriederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94 [1982]). "Custody determinations depend largely upon the court'sassessment of the credibility of witnesses, as well as the parties' character, temperament, and sincerity"(Matter of Yasus v Yasus, 69 AD3d738, 739 [2010]; see Matter of Brass vOtero, 40 AD3d 752, 752 [2007]). Thus, where the court has conducted a completeevidentiary hearing, its findings should be accorded deference, and its custody determination will not bedisturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach,56 NY2d at 173; Matter of Yasus v Yasus, 69 AD3d at 739; Matter of Brass vOtero, 40 AD3d at 752).
Here, the Family Court's finding that the child's best interests would be served by an award ofphysical custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed(see Matter of Ganzenmuller v Rivera, 40AD3d 756, 757 [2007]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.