| Matter of Wallace v Roberts |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02756 [105 AD3d 1053] |
| April 24, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Lauren Wallace,Respondent, v Kristiaan F. Roberts, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the fatherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lechtrecker, Ct. Atty. Ref.),dated November 2, 2011, which, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for solecustody of the parties' child and fixed a visitation schedule.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties, who were never married to each other, are the parents of a daughter,born August 3, 2010. Within approximately two months of the child's birth, the fatherfiled a petition for joint custody and the mother filed a petition seeking sole custody ofthe child. After a hearing, the Family Court, inter alia, granted the mother's petition.
There is "no prima facie right to the custody of the child in either parent" (DomesticRelations Law §§ 70 [a]; 240 [1] [a]; see Friederwitzer vFriederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 93 [1982]; Matter of Riccio v Riccio, 21 AD3d 1107 [2005]). Theessential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child(see Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d at 94; Matter of Cardozo v Defreitas,87 AD3d 1138 [2011]). "Since custody determinations turn in large part onassessments of the credibility, character, temperament and sincerity of the parties, theFamily Court's determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound andsubstantial basis in the record" (Matter of Chery v Richardson, 88 AD3d 788, 788 [2011];see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174 [1982]). Here, the FamilyCourt's determination that the child's best interests would be served by an award ofcustody to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Guzman vPizarro, 102 AD3d 964 [2013]; Matter of Thomas v Trice, 83 AD3d 722, 723 [2011]).
The father contends that his statutory and constitutional due process and equalprotection rights were violated by certain of the Family Court's statements and rulingsduring the course of the custody proceedings. Contrary to his contention, the father wasafforded a full and fair hearing on the petitions.
The father's remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Austinand Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.