| Matter of Harry v Harry |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01463 [92 AD3d 883] |
| February 21, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Bernard Harry, Appellant, v Sandy Harry,Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Sandy Harry, Respondent, v Bernard Harry,Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Cynthia Domingo Foraste, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the fatherappeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated April14, 2011, as, after a hearing, denied his petition for sole custody of the subject child, and grantedthe mother's separate petition for sole custody of the subject child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, 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 Julie v Wills, 73 AD3d 777, 777 [2010]; seeEschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Haggerty v Haggerty, 78 AD3d 998, 999 [2010]). "Because custodydeterminations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of theparties and witnesses, deference is accorded to the trial court's findings, and such findings willnot be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Otero v Nieves, 77 AD3d756, 756-757 [2010]; see Haggerty v Haggerty, 78 AD3d at 999; Matter of Juliev Wills, 73 AD3d at 777). Here, the Family Court's award of sole custody to the mother has asound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Peoples v Bideau, 85AD3d 798 [2011]; Matter ofCavallero v Pena, 83 AD3d 1062, 1063 [2011]). Florio, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Miller,JJ., concur.