| Matter of Ramirez v Velez |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08739 [78 AD3d 1062] |
| November 23, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Christopher Ramirez,Respondent, v Crystal L. Velez, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.H.O.), dated June 30, 2009, which,after a hearing, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
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 child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Nikolic v Ingrassia, 47 AD3d 819 [2008]). "Factors tobe considered in determining the child's best interests include the quality of the homeenvironment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child, the ability ofeach parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development, the financial statusand ability of each parent to provide for the child, the relative fitness of the respective parents,and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with theother parent" (Matter of Elliott v Felder, 69 AD3d 623, 623 [2010]; see Eschbach vEschbach, 56 NY2d at 171-172). "Because custody determinations depend to a great extentupon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference isaccorded to the trial court's findings, and such findings will not be disturbed unless they lack asound and substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Otero v Nieves, 77 AD3d 756[2010]; see Salvatore v Salvatore, 68 AD3d 966 [2009]; Matter of Berkham vVessia, 63 AD3d 1155 [2009]).
Here, contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's finding that the subject child'sbest interests would be served by an award of sole custody to the father, with visitation to her,has a sound and substantial basis in the record.
To the extent that the mother raises issues regarding a temporary custody order, those issueshave been rendered academic. The order awarding the father temporary custody of the child[*2]was superseded by the order awarding him permanentcustody, and the temporary order is no longer in effect. Any alleged defect in the temporary orderwould not render the permanent order defective, since the permanent order was based upon a fulland fair hearing (see Matter of Brenda J. v Nicole M., 59 AD3d 299, 300 [2009];Matter of Miller v Shaw, 51 AD3d 927, 927-928 [2008]). Mastro, J.P., Covello,Angiolillo and Lott, JJ., concur.