| Matter of Cordero v DeLeon |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01605 [92 AD3d 943] |
| February 28, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Joe Cordero, Jr., Appellant, v Judith AnnDeLeon, Respondent. |
—[*1]
David Laniado, Cedarhurst, N.Y., for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Tammy Linn and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorneyfor the child.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals froman order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (IDV Part) (Harrington, J.), dated January 10,2011, which, upon a decision of the same court, also dated January 10, 2011, made after ahearing, awarded sole custody of the subject child to the mother.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In resolving custody disputes, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child (seeEschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of Cavallero v Pena, 83 AD3d 1062 [2011]). The SupremeCourt's determination of custody disputes is largely dependent upon an assessment of thecredibility of the parties, and those credibility determinations are generally accorded greatdeference on appeal. The determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a soundsubstantial basis in the record (seeMatter of Duran v Sutherland, 86 AD3d 539, 539 [2011]).
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly considered the totality of thecircumstances in determining that the best interests of the child would be served by awardingsole custody to the mother (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]). Thedetermination is supported by the record, including the testimony of the parties and the opinionof a court-appointed forensic psychologist. The determination is also consistent with the positionof the attorney for the child (see Matter of Duran v Sutherland, 86 AD3d at 540; Matter of Martinez v Hyatt, 86 AD3d571 [2011]). Since the Family Court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in therecord, it will not be disturbed (see Matter of Duran v Sutherland, 86 AD3d at 540).Balkin, J.P., Eng, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.