| Matter of Quinones v Gonzalez |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09277 [79 AD3d 893] |
| December 14, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Mindy Lee Quinones, Appellant, v EricGonzalez, Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from anorder of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Tarantino, Jr., J.), dated March 10, 2009, which, after ahearing, denied her petition for sole custody of the parties' child and granted the father's cross petitionfor sole custody of the child.
Ordered the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality of thecircumstances, what is in the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Otero vNieves, 77 AD3d 756 [2010]; Matter of Wakefield v Wakefield, 74 AD3d 1213 [2010]). Moreover,inasmuch as custody determinations depend in large part on an assessment of the character andcredibility of the parties and witnesses, the Family Court's findings will not be disturbed unless they lacka sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Garcia v Becerra, 68 AD3d 864 [2009]; Matter of Bonilla v Amaya, 58 AD3d728 [2009]). The Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served byawarding sole custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Roldan v Nieves, 76 AD3d634 [2010]; Matter of McDonough vMcDonough, 73 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2010]).
As there was no prior custody order in effect at the time this proceeding was commenced, theFamily Court was not required to engage in a change-of-circumstances analysis (see Matter of Louis M. v Administration forChildren's Servs., 69 AD3d 633, 634 [2010]; Matter of Khaykin v Kanayeva, 47 AD3d 817 [2008]; Matter of Anson v Anson, 20 AD3d603, 603-604 [2005]; cf. Matter of Jiminez v Jiminez, 301 AD2d 971, 972 [2003]). Thetemporary custody order issued during the pendency of this proceeding without the benefit of a fullplenary hearing is only one factor relevant to the ultimate determination of custody (see Matter of Bessette v Pelton, 29 AD3d1085, 1087 [2006]; Matter of Anson v Anson, 20 AD3d at 603-604; Matter ofBruce BB. v Debra CC., 307 AD2d 408, 409 [2003]). Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson andBelen, JJ., concur.