Matter of Thomas v Trice
2011 NY Slip Op 02889 [83 AD3d 722]
April 5, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 8, 2011


In the Matter of David Thomas, Respondent,
v
Sheri Trice,Appellant.

[*1]Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.

Adewole Agbayewa, Forest Hills, N.Y., for respondent.

Joseph A. Fredericks, North Bellmore, N.Y., Attorney for the Child.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, aslimited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (McGrady,Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated December 10, 2009, as, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for solecustody of the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court did not apply an incorrect legalstandard in making its determination. As there was no prior custody order in effect at the timethis proceeding commenced, the Family Court treated this as an initial custody determination andwas not required to engage in a change-of-circumstances analysis (see Matter of Quinones v Gonzalez, 79AD3d 893 [2010]; Matter of LouisM. v Administration for Children's Servs., 69 AD3d 633 [2010]; Matter of Jiminez vJiminez, 301 AD2d 971 [2003]; seealso Matter of Neail v Deshane, 19 AD3d 758 [2005]).

On the merits, the Family Court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine,under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child (see Eschbachv Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]). Moreover, inasmuch as custody determinations depend inlarge part on an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, theFamily Court's findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in therecord (see Matter of Andrews vMouzon, 80 AD3d 761 [2011]). The Family Court's determination that the child's bestinterests would be served by awarding sole custody to the father has a sound and substantial basisin the record. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Balkin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.