| Matter of Guzman v Pizarro |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00488 [102 AD3d 964] |
| January 30, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jonathan Guzman,Respondent, v Rosa Pizarro, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter ofRosa Pizarro, Appellant, v Jonathan Guzman, Respondent. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1] Christopher J. Robles, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Sena Kim-Reuter and Janet Neustaetter ofcounsel), attorney for the children.
In two related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, themother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court,Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated September 26, 2011, as, after a hearing, granted thefather's petition for sole custody of the parties' child and denied her cross petition for solecustody of the child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The Family Court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, underthe totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child (seeEschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). The proceedings here concernedan initial determination of custody. Therefore, contrary to the mother's contention, thefather was not required to show a change of circumstances in order to be awardedcustody of the subject child (seeMatter of Roberta GG. v Leon HH., 99 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2012]; Matter of Thomas v Trice, 83AD3d 722, 723 [2011]; Matter of Smith v Smith, 61 AD3d 1275, 1276 [2009]).The parties' informal prior arrangement was but one factor for the Family Court toconsider in determining that child's best interests (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56NY2d at 171; Matter of Roberta GG. v Leon HH., 99 AD3d at 1058; Matterof Smith v Smith, 61 AD3d at 1276).
Since custody determinations depend in large part on the trial court's assessment ofthe character and credibility of the parties and witnesses (see Matter of Louise E.S. vW. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946, 947 [1985]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2dat 173-174), that court's findings are generally accorded deference and will not bedisturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the [*2]record (see Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 677-678[2012]; Matter of Nava vKinsler, 85 AD3d 1186, 1186-1187 [2011]). Here, the Family Court'sdetermination that the child's best interests would be served by an award of custody tothe father has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Thomas vTrice, 83 AD3d at 723). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.