| Matter of Maraj v Gordon |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00096 [102 AD3d 698] |
| January 9, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Leslie Tyrone Maraj,Appellant, v Natalie Gordon, Respondent. |
—[*1] Edward E. Caesar, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Karin Wolfe and Janet Neustaetter of counsel),attorney for the child.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the fatherappeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, KingsCounty (O'Shea, J.), dated February 14, 2011, as, after hearing, awarded sole custody ofthe parties' son to the mother.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The essential consideration in determining custody is the best interests of the child(see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Carrasquillo v Cora,60 AD3d 852, 853 [2009]; Gurewich v Gurewich, 43 AD3d 458 [2007]). The factorsto be considered in making a custody determination include " 'the parental guidanceprovided by the custodial parent, each parent's ability to provide for the child's emotionaland intellectual development, each parent's ability to provide for the child financially, therelative fitness of each parent, and the effect an award of custody to one parent mighthave on the child's relationship with the other parent' " (Craig v Williams-Craig, 61AD3d 712, 712 [2009], quoting Matter of Berrouet v Greaves, 35 AD3d 460, 461 [2006];see Matter of McGovern vLynch, 62 AD3d 712, 712 [2009]; Matter of Carrasquillo v Cora, 60 AD3d 852 [2009]). The"existence or absence of any one factor cannot be determinative on appellate reviewsince the court is to consider the totality of the circumstances" (Eschbach vEschbach, 56 NY2d at 174; see Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d 637, 638 [2008]; Matter of Bowe v Robinson,23 AD3d 555, 557 [2005]; Kaplan v Kaplan, 21 AD3d 993, 995 [2005]).
Moreover, where, as here, a complete evidentiary hearing has been held on the issueof custody, any determination depends to a great extent upon the hearing court'sassessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, andsincerity of the parties (seeMatter of Rudolph v Armstead, 61 AD3d 979, 980 [2009]; Matter of Gilmartin v Abbas,60 AD3d 1058, 1058 [2009]; Matter of Bonilla v Amaya, 58 AD3d 728, 729 [2009]).Accordingly, the credibility findings of the hearing court will be accorded great weightand its award of custody will not be disturbed unless it lacks a [*2]sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Jara v Rivera, 60AD3d 680, 680 [2009]; Matter of Francis v Cox, 57 AD3d 776, 776-777 [2008];Matter of Rolon v Medina,56 AD3d 676, 677 [2008]).
Here, the Family Court's determination to award sole custody of the child to themother has a sound and substantial basis in the record. The evidence at the hearingestablished, inter alia, that the child, who was eight years old at the time of the hearingand who had been in the mother's care since he was born, was happy and well-adjusted,and was close to his brother and sister, who also lived with the mother. In addition, theevidence showed that the mother was best able to provide for the child, and wasadequately providing for the child's emotional and intellectual development.Accordingly, the Family Court's award of custody to the mother has a sound andsubstantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see Gurewich vGurewich, 43 AD3d at 459). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.