| Matter of Arndt v Arndt |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07995 [100 AD3d 879] |
| November 21, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Keith Arndt, Appellant, v Nicole Arndt,Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Nicole Arndt, Respondent, v Keith Arndt,Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Gassman Baiamonte Betts, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Stephen Gassman and Michael C. Daabof counsel), for respondent. John M. Zenir, Esq. P.C., Mineola, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In two related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the fatherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Bennett, J.), dated June 27, 2011,which, after a hearing, in effect, denied his petition seeking custody of the child and granted themother's separate petition for sole custody of the child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child(see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Cardozo v Defreitas, 87AD3d 1138 [2011]). "Since custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of thecredibility, character, temperament and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court's determinationshould not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Chery v Richardson, 88AD3d 788, 788 [2011]).
Joint custody is encouraged "as a voluntary alternative for relatively stable, amicable parentsbehaving in mature civilized fashion" (Braiman v Braiman, 44 NY2d 584, 589-590[1978]). Here, contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly concluded that theparents' relationship was so acrimonious that it effectively precluded joint decision making (see Matter of Edwards v Rothschild, 60AD3d 675, 677 [2009]) and properly determined that it was in the best interests of theparties' child to award sole custody to the mother, with the father retaining significant visitationrights (see Matter of Schweizer vJablesnik, 95 AD3d 1341 [2012]; Matter of Pavone v Bronson, 88 AD3d 724, 725 [2011]; Freihofner v Freihofner, 33 AD3d585, 586 [2006]). The father's remaining contentions are without merit.[*2]
Accordingly, the Family Court properly awarded solecustody to the mother and denied the father's petition for sole custody of the subject child.Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.