| Matter of Gasby v Chung |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07046 [88 AD3d 709] |
| October 4, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Melsone R. Gasby, Respondent, v JennineW. Chung, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Melsone R. Gasby, Brooklyn, N.Y., respondent pro se (no brief filed).
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Sheares, J.), dated May 27, 2010, which, aftera hearing, inter alia, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the child and denied her crosspetition for sole custody of the child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"The court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality ofthe circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child" (Matter of Quinones v Gonzalez, 79 AD3d 893, 894 [2010]; seeEschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). As custody determinations depend inlarge part on an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, theFamily Court's findings should not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis inthe record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173; Matter of Kreischer v Perry, 83 AD3d841 [2011]; Matter of Quinones v Gonzalez, 79 AD3d at 894).
Here, the Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served byawarding sole custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Peoples v Bideau, 85AD3d 798 [2011]; Pierre-Paul vBoursiquot, 74 AD3d 935, 936 [2010]; Matter of Ramirez v Velez, 78 AD3d 1062 [2010]; Matter of Paul v Sawyer, 78 AD3d710, 711 [2010]). Based on the parents' testimony and credibility, the Family Court found,inter alia, that the father was more willing than the mother to assure meaningful contact betweenthe child and the other parent (see Matter of [*2]Kreischer vPerry, 83 AD3d at 842; Matter ofPappas v Kells, 77 AD3d 952, 953-954 [2010]). Contrary to the mother's contention, theFamily Court did not improperly fail to consider her allegations of domestic violence, as theFamily Court, in effect, resolved the parents' conflicting testimony in favor of the father and,accordingly, the mother's allegations were not supported by a preponderance of the credibleevidence (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1]; Pierre-Paul v Boursiquot,74 AD3d at 936; Matter of Khaykin vKanayeva, 47 AD3d 817, 817-818 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Cohen, JJ.,concur.