| Matter of Young v Young |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04061 [84 AD3d 972] |
| May 10, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Raymond L. Young,Respondent, v Deborah Young, Appellant, et al.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Raymond L. Young, Centereach, N.Y., petitioner-respondent pro se. Joy E. Jorgensen, Babylon, N.Y., Attorney for the Children.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kelly, J.), dated January 27, 2010, which,after a hearing, awarded sole custody of the subject children to the father.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court did not err in summarily denying the mother's motion to suppress certainevidence which she alleged was obtained illegally. In a custody case, the court is required todetermine "solely what is for the best interest of the child, and what will best promote its welfareand happiness, and make award accordingly" (Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]). "The bestinterests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances" (Matter of Andrews v Mouzon, 80AD3d 761, 762 [2011]). Application of the exclusionary rule to prevent the court fromconsidering factors relevant to that determination, pertaining here to the condition of the home ofa parent who is seeking custody, would have a "detrimental impact upon the fact-finding processand the State's enormous interest in protecting the welfare of children," which outweighs thedeterrent effect of applying the exclusionary rule (Matter of Diane P., 110 AD2d 354,354 [1985]).
Moreover, we reject the mother's contention that the Family Court should have conducted apretrial hearing as to the voluntariness of an admission she made and the effectiveness of hercounsel in a neglect proceeding which had been brought against her. The mother testified as tothese matters during the custody trial, such that the issues and her position thereon were beforethe Family Court.
Because custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the characterand credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded to the trial court's findings, andsuch findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record(see Matter of Rodriguez v Guerra,28 AD3d 775 [2006]). Here, the Family Court's determination that it was in the subject [*2]children's best interests for the father to be awarded custody has asound and substantial basis in the record (see Baker v Baker, 66 AD3d 722 [2009]; Matter of Muller vMuller, 221 AD2d 635 [1995]).
The mother's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Belen, Chambers andRoman, JJ., concur.