| Matter of Demeter v Alayon |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09639 [90 AD3d 1045] |
| December 27, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Gregory Demeter, Respondent, v GladysAlayon, Appellant. |
—[*1] Barton R. Resnicoff, Great Neck, N.Y., for respondent. Angela T. Starr, Massapequa Park, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the motherappeals from an amended order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (McGrady,Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated February 8, 2010, which, after a fact-finding and dispositional hearing, interalia, awarded the parties joint legal custody of the subject child and conditioned an award of jointresidential custody on the mother's relocation to New Jersey by September 2010.
Ordered that the amended order of disposition 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 Family Court's determination in a custodydispute is based upon a first-hand assessment of the parties, as well as their credibility, character,and temperament, and the Family Court's credibility determinations are to be accorded greatweight on appeal, such a determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound andsubstantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173; Matter of Perez v Martinez, 52 AD3d518 [2008]; Matter of Brass vOtero, 40 AD3d 752 [2007]).
Contrary to the mother's contentions, the Family Court properly considered the totality of thecircumstances in determining that the best interests of the child would be served by awarding theparties joint legal and residential custody (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 174;Matter of Perez v Martinez, 52 AD3d at 519). Although there is some antagonismbetween the parties, it is also apparent that they are both good and loving parents to theirdaughter, and that she is equally attached to both of them (see Matter of Marriott v Hernandez, 55 AD3d 613, 614 [2008];Teuschler v Teuschler, 242 AD2d 289, 290 [1997]).
The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it conditioned jointresidential custody on the mother's relocation to New Jersey, where the father resides. Since thechild has begun school, the parents must live close to each other in order to equally shareparenting time. Skelos, J.P., Belen, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.