| Matter of Gooler v Gooler |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04001 [107 AD3d 712] |
| June 5, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Francis I. Gooler,Respondent, v Kristina L. Gooler, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matterof Kristina L. Gooler, Appellant, v Francis I. Gooler, Respondent. (Proceedings No. 2and 3.) |
—[*1] John F.X. Burke, Goshen, N.Y., for respondent. Ronna L. DeLoe, New Rochelle, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In related child custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Actarticle 6, and a related family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8,the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), dated July 5, 2011, as, after a hearing, awarded thefather sole custody of the subject children, and limited her contact with the children tosupervised visitation.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
"The court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under thetotality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child" (Matter of Julie v Wills, 73AD3d 777, 777 [2010]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171[1982]; Matter of Maraj vGordon, 102 AD3d 698 [2013]; Matter of Julian B. v Williams, 97 AD3d 670 [2012]; Matter of Purse v Crocker, 95AD3d 1216 [2012]; Matterof Awan v Awan, 63 AD3d 733, 734 [2009]). Since custody determinationsdepend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the partiesand witnesses, deference is accorded to the trial court's findings, and such findings willnot be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Harry v Harry,92 AD3d 883, 884 [2012]; Haggerty v Haggerty, 78 AD3d 998, 999 [2010]; Matter of Otero v Nieves, 77AD3d 756, 756-757 [2010]; Matter of Conforti v Conforti, 46 AD3d 877, 877-878[2007]). Here, the Supreme Court's determination that the children's best interests wouldbe served by awarding sole custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in therecord and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Gasby v Chung, 88 AD3d 709, 709-710[2011]; Matter of Quinones vGonzalez, 79 AD3d 893 [2010]).[*2]
Additionally, the Supreme Court providentlyexercised its discretion in ordering the mother's visitation to be supervised (see Matter of Colter v Baker,104 AD3d 850 [2013]; Matter of Anaya v Hundley, 12 AD3d 594 [2004]). Thedetermination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to the court'ssound discretion, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack asound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Binong Xu v Sullivan, 91 AD3d 771,771-772 [2012]; Cervera vBressler, 50 AD3d 837, 839 [2008]). Here, given the totality of thecircumstances, unsupervised visitation with the mother is not in the children's bestinterests (see Matter of Grant vTerry, 104 AD3d 854 [2013]; Matter of Bullinger v Costa, 63 AD3d 735 [2009]; Matter of Powell vBlumenthal, 35 AD3d 615 [2006]; Matter of Abranko v Vargas, 26 AD3d 490, 491 [2006]).Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Roman, JJ., concur.