| Matter of Blakeney v Blakeney |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06947 [99 AD3d 898] |
| October 17, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Mario Blakeney, Respondent, v LavonneBlakeney, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Lavonne Blakeney, Appellant, v MarioBlakeney, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Frank A. Buono, Staten Island, N.Y., for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Tammy Linn and Barbara H. Dildine of counsel),attorney for the child.
In two related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the motherappeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County(Cammer, J.H.O.), dated May 24, 2011, as, after a hearing, awarded sole custody of the parties'youngest child to the father.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The essential consideration in determining custody is the best interests of the child (seeEschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Carrasquillo v Cora, 60 AD3d 852 [2009]; Gurewich v Gurewich, 43 AD3d458 [2007]). The factors to be considered in making a custody determination include "theparental guidance provided by the custodial parent, each parent's ability to provide for the child'semotional and intellectual development, each parent's ability to provide for the child financially,the relative fitness of each parent, and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have onthe child's relationship with the other parent" (Craig v Williams-Craig, 61 AD3d 712, 712 [2009]; see Matter of McGovern v Lynch, 62AD3d 712 [2009]; Matter of Carrasquillo v Cora, 60 AD3d at 853). The "existenceor absence of any one factor cannot be determinative on appellate review since the court is toconsider the totality of the circumstances" (Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 172; see Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d637 [2008]; Matter of Bowe vRobinson, 23 AD3d 555 [2005]; Kaplan v Kaplan, 21 AD3d 993 [2005]). In addition, where, ashere, a complete evidentiary hearing has been held on the issue of custody, any determinationdepends to a great extent upon the hearing [*2]court's assessmentof the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties(see Matter of Rudolph v Armstead,61 AD3d 979 [2009]; Matter ofGilmartin v Abbas, 60 AD3d 1058 [2009]; Matter of Bonilla v Amaya, 58 AD3d 728 [2009]). The credibilityfindings of the Family Court will be accorded great weight and its award of custody will not bedisturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Jara v Rivera, 60 AD3d680 [2009]; Matter of Francis vCox, 57 AD3d 776 [2008]; Matter of Rolon v Medina, 56 AD3d 676 [2008]).
Applying these standards, we find that the Family Court's determination to award solecustody of the parties' youngest child to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record.The evidence at the hearing, which was held in January 2011, established that the child, who was12½ years old at the time of the hearing and had been in the father's care since April 2009,when the mother sent him to live with the father, was happy and well-adjusted, was performingsatisfactorily in school, and had a close relationship with his father, his sister, and his extendedfamily with whom he lived. In addition, the father was able to provide a more stable environmentfor the child, was best able to provide for the child financially, and adequately provided for thechild's emotional and intellectual development. Accordingly, the Family Court's determination toaward custody to the father will not be disturbed (see Gurewich v Gurewich, 43 AD3d at459). Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.