Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: ROWAN A. ALBIN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. BRETT B. BUSHAW, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent father appeals from an order that, inter alia, awarded petitioner mother sole legal and primary physical custody of the subject child. We reject the father's contention that Family Court's custody determination lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record.
“In making an initial custody determination, the court is required to consider the best interests of the child by reviewing such factors as maintaining stability for the child, ․ the home environment with each parent, each parent's past performance, relative fitness, ability to guide and provide for the child's overall well-being, and the willingness of each parent to foster a relationship with the other parent” (Matter of Gilbert v Nunez-Merced, 181 AD3d 1210, 1210 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 910, 911 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Athoe v Goodman, 170 AD3d 1532, 1533 [4th Dept 2019]). We agree with the court that those factors weigh in the mother's favor, particularly in light of the father's efforts to interfere with the mother's contact with the child, and we thus conclude that the record supports the court's determination that it is in the best interests of the child to award sole legal and primary physical custody to the mother (see Gilbert, 181 AD3d at 1210-1211; Matter of Marino v Marino, 90 AD3d 1694, 1695 [4th Dept 2011]).
Finally, we conclude that the father's challenge to the court's initial temporary order was rendered moot by the entry of the final order of custody (see Matter of Rodriguez v Feldman, 126 AD3d 1557, 1558 [4th Dept 2015]; Matter of Ramirez v Velez, 78 AD3d 1062, 1062-1063 [2d Dept 2010]).
Entered: January 31, 2025
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 746
Decided: January 31, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)