| Matter of Van Dunk v Bonilla |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08138 [100 AD3d 1008] |
| November 28, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Latricha Van Dunk, Appellant, v RichardBonilla, Respondent. |
—[*1] Law Offices of K. D. Rothman, P.C., Nanuet, N.Y., for respondent. Veronica J. Young, New City, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Richardson-Mendelson, Ct. Atty. Ref.),dated August 12, 2011, which, after a hearing, denied her petition for sole custody of the subjectchildren and awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children, with sole physical custody tothe father and certain visitation to her.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In a child custody proceeding, the court's paramount concern is to determine what placement,based on the totality of the circumstances, is in the best interests of the child (seeFriederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94 [1982]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). The court's determination of custody depends to a great extent upon anassessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, and those determinationsare generally accorded deference on appeal. The determination should not be disturbed unless itlacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at174; Matter of Gordon v Goldin, 95AD3d 1115, 1115 [2012]). In " 'custody disputes, the value of forensic evaluations of theparents and children has long been recognized' (Ekstra v Ekstra, 49 AD3d 594, 595 [2008]; see Matter of Womack v Jackson, 30AD3d 433, 434 [2006]; Stern v Stern, 225 AD2d 540, 541 [1996]) and the opinionsof forensic experts should 'not be readily set aside' unless contradicted by the record" (Matter of Volpe v Volpe, 61 AD3d691, 692 [2009], quoting Bains v Bains, 308 AD2d 557, 558 [2003]).
Here, the Family Court properly considered the totality of the circumstances in determiningthat the best interests of the subject children would be served by awarding sole physical custodyto the father. This determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, including thetestimony of the parties and the court-appointed forensic psychologist, and should not bedisturbed (see Matter of Cordero vDeLeon, 92 AD3d 943 [2012]; see also Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 174).Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.