| Matter of Duran v Sutherland |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05807 [86 AD3d 539] |
| July 5, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of David Duran, Respondent, v KimberlySutherland, Appellant. |
—[*1] Marva Prescod, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Heather L. Kalachman and Janet Neustaetter ofcounsel), Attorney for the Child.
In related custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 and arelated family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the mother appealsfrom (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Henry, J.), dated December16, 2009, made after a hearing, and (2) an order of the same court, also dated December 16,2009, which, upon the decision, awarded sole custody of the child to the father.
Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as noappeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509[1984]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In adjudicating custody issues, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child(see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Perez v Martinez, 52 AD3d518, 519 [2008]; Matter of Brass vOtero, 40 AD3d 752 [2007]). Since the Supreme Court's determination in a custodydispute is based upon a first-hand assessment of the parties, their credibility, character, andtemperament, it is generally accorded great deference on appeal and should not be disturbedunless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56NY2d at 173; Matter of Perez vMartinez, 52 AD3d 518, 519 [2008]; Matter of Brass v Otero, 40 AD3d 752 [2007]).
Contrary to the mother's contentions, the Supreme Court properly considered the totality ofthe circumstances in determining that the best interests of the child would be served by awardingcustody to the father, with liberal visitation to her (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at174; Matter of Perez v Martinez, 52AD3d 518, 519 [2008]). That determination is supported by the record, including thetestimony of the parties and the recommendation of the court-appointed forensic evaluator. Sincethe Supreme Court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, [*2]it will not be disturbed (see Matter of McCormick v Dixon, 78 AD3d 708 [2010]; Matter of Edwards v Crombie, 63AD3d 926 [2009]; Matter ofDesroches v Desroches, 54 AD3d 1035 [2008]; Matter of Perez v Martinez, 52 AD3d 518, 519 [2008]; Matter of Brass v Otero, 40 AD3d752 [2007]).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Hall andRoman, JJ., concur.