IN RE: CORY E.L. (2026)

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jessica M. Forman, Ref.), entered on or about December 18, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted, after a fact-finding hearing, petitioner father's petition for sole physical and legal custody of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that joint custody was not appropriate due to the parents' demonstrated difficulties with communicating effectively (see Lubit v. Lubit, 65 A.D.3d 954, 955, 885 N.Y.S.2d 492 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 716, 2010 WL 118203 [2010], cert denied 560 U.S. 940, 130 S.Ct. 3362, 176 L.Ed.2d 1247 [2010];  Matter of Paul D. v. Margarita O., 227 A.D.3d 439, 440, 210 N.Y.S.3d 404 [1st Dept. 2024]).  Here, the father testified about repeated failures of communication and characterized his relationship with the mother as “[n]ot good” and acknowledged that the relationship “has been rocky and disagreeable.”  According to the father, the mother had repeatedly refused to let him see the child in 2020 and regularly failed to answer the telephone and respond to important messages regarding the child.  The mother acknowledged that she sometimes screened the father's calls and chose not to communicate with him.  The child also expressed that the parents' inability to get along and listen to each other made the child “sad and upset.”  The court's decision to credit the father's testimony in regard to the mother's allegations of domestic violence by the father and not to credit the mother's testimony is entitled to great deference (see Matter of Judith L.C. v. Lawrence Y., 179 A.D.3d 616, 616, 118 N.Y.S.3d 573 [1st Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 911, 2020 WL 5047416 [2020]).

Furthermore, Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served by awarding sole physical and legal custody to the father was based on a thorough assessment of the witnesses' demeanor and credibility and is supported by a sound and substantial basis (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171–173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982];  Matter of Carl T. v. Yajaira A.C., 95 A.D.3d 640, 641–642, 945 N.Y.S.2d 20 [1st Dept. 2012]).  The record shows that it was reasonable to infer that the father is a supportive parent who would provide the child with adequate housing, financial support, and a stable home life, and that he was the primary parent involved with the child's schooling, extracurriculars, and medical appointments (see Matter of Stephanie C. v. Ricardo E., 231 A.D.3d 663, 664, 219 N.Y.S.3d 329 [1st Dept. 2024]).  Although the mother had resided in the same apartment for years, she did not have regular employment, and the child was often absent or late to school while in the mother's custody, “to the detriment of [his] academic performance” (Matter of Phillip M. v. Precious B., 173 A.D.3d 434, 435, 105 N.Y.S.3d 378 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 911, 2019 WL 4068326 [2019]).

The record also supports Family Court's determination that the father is more likely to foster the relationship between the mother and the child.  The father, unlike the mother, testified that he would ensure the child remained in regular contact with the mother, and he wished to encourage her involvement in the child's education and activities (see Matter of Lulu J.S. v. Rahmel H.H., 239 A.D.3d 492, 493–94, 236 N.Y.S.3d 89 [1st Dept. 2025]).