| Matter of Peoples v Bideau |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05073 [85 AD3d 798] |
| June 7, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Michael Peoples, Appellant, v BernadetteBideau, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Bernadette Bideau, Respondent, vMichael Peoples, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Catherine S. Bridge, Staten Island, N.Y., for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Heather L. Kalachman and Barbara H. Dildine ofcounsel), Attorney for the Child.
In related child custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, thefather appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (IDV Part) (Silber, J.),dated December 18, 2009, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the mother's cross petitionfor sole custody of the subject child, and denied his petition for sole custody of the subject child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"In making a custody determination, the paramount consideration is the best interests of thechild" (Matter of Cavallero v Pena,83 AD3d 1062, 1062 [2011]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982];Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 [1982]). "The best interests of the child aredetermined by a review of the totality of the circumstances" (Matter of Chabotte v Faella, 77 AD3d 749, 749 [2010]; seeEschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 171). "Since the Supreme Court's determination is largelydependent upon an assessment of the credibility of witnesses and upon the character,temperament, and sincerity of the parents, its determination should not be disturbed unless itlacks a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Cavallero v Pena, 83 AD3d 1062, 1062 [2011]; see Matter of Marriott v Hernandez, 55AD3d 613, 613-614 [2008]; Matterof Battista v Fasano, 41 AD3d 712, 713 [2007]). Here, the Supreme Court's award ofsole custody to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not bedisturbed (see Matter of Cavallero vPena, 83 AD3d 1062 [2011]; Matter of Chabotte v Faella, 77 AD3d 749 [2010]).
The father's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers andRoman, JJ., concur.