| Matter of Julian B. v Williams |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05516 [97 AD3d 670] |
| July 11, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Julian B., Appellant, v Nioka Williams,Respondent. |
—[*1] Anna Stern, New York, N.Y., for respondent. Karen Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Sena Kim-Reuter and Janet Neustaetter of counsel),attorney for the children.
In related custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, thefather appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated February 14,2011, which granted the mother's petition for sole custody of the parties' children Samia B.,Syasia B., and Sanea B. and denied the father's petition for custody of Samia B. and joint custodyand visitation with Syasia B. and Sanea B.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as pertains to Samia B. is dismissed asacademic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
During the pendency of this appeal, one of the children, Samia B., turned 18 years of age. Assuch, she is no longer subject to the order appealed from, and the appeal from so much of theorder as pertains to Samia B. must be dismissed as academic (see Matter of Bartley v Pringle, 90 AD3d 653 [2011]; Matter of Brown v Jimenez, 88 AD3d875, 876 [2011]; Matter of Cahill vZakian, 71 AD3d 765 [2010]; Matter of Merando v Vantassel, 66 AD3d 783 [2009]).
"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]; Matter of Harry v Harry, 92 AD3d 883, 884 [2012]; Haggerty v Haggerty, 78 AD3d998, 999 [2010]). "Because custody determinations depend to a great extent upon anassessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded tothe trial court's findings, and such findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound andsubstantial basis in the record" (Matterof Otero v Nieves, 77 AD3d 756, 756-757 [2010]; see Matter of Harry v Harry,92 AD3d at 884; Haggerty v Haggerty, 78 AD3d at 999). Here, the Family Court's awardof sole custody to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not bedisturbed (see Matter of Harry v Harry, 92 AD3d at 884; Matter of Peoples vBideau, [*2]85 AD3d 798 [2011]; Matter of Cavallero v Pena, 83 AD3d1062, 1063 [2011]).
Moreover, contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court possessed adequate relevantinformation to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to the subjectchildren's best interests (see Matter ofPatterson v Patterson, 92 AD3d 682, 683 [2012]). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Belen andSgroi, JJ., concur.