Matter of Cavallero v Pena
2011 NY Slip Op 03597 [83 AD3d 1062]
April 26, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 8, 2011


In the Matter of George Cavallero, Appellant,
v
MariaPena, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Maria Pena, Respondent, v GeorgeCavallero, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[*1]Thomas T. Keating, White Plains, N.Y. (Joseph M. Angiolillo of counsel), for appellant.

Albanese & Albanese, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Robert A. Carpentier and Barry A. Oster ofcounsel), for respondent.

Joseph P. Abbenda, Glen Cove, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In related child custody proceedings, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so muchof an amended order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (IDV Part) (St. George, J.), enteredMarch 12, 2010, as, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for sole custody of the parties'two children and, in effect, denied his petition for sole custody of the children and to relocatewith the children to Putnam County.

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.

The Supreme Court properly awarded the mother sole custody of the parties' two children. Inmaking a custody determination, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child(see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,55 NY2d 89 [1982]). Since the Supreme Court's determination is largely dependent upon anassessment of the credibility of witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity ofthe parents, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basisin the record (see Allain v Allain, 35 AD3d 513, 513-514 [2006]). Here, the SupremeCourt's determination to award the mother sole custody of the children has a sound andsubstantial basis in the record. That determination was supported by, among other things, theevaluation of the court-appointed forensic evaluator (see Nicholas T. v Christine T., 42AD3d 526, 527 [2007]; Gorelik v Gorelik, 303 AD2d 553, 554 [2003]).[*2]

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.Dillon, J.P., Florio, Chambers and Miller, 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.