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: JANIE STEARNS, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT CRAWFORD, RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
IN RE: ROBERT CRAWFORD, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. JANIE STEARNS, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: On appeal from an order that, inter alia, granted petitioner-respondent mother sole custody and primary physical residence of the parties' children with access to respondent-petitioner father, the father contends that Family Court erred in transferring temporary custody of the younger child to the mother in the absence of an attorney representing the father. We reject that contention inasmuch as the father was unrepresented due to his own inaction in seeking assigned counsel (see Gandia v. Rivera–Gandia, 260 A.D.2d 321, 321). The record establishes that, during two prior court appearances, the court advised the father of his right to counsel and gave him a referral for assigned counsel. At the third appearance, when the father again appeared without counsel, the court granted the temporary order upon the motion by the Attorney for the Children. In any event, assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in deciding the motion when the father was unrepresented by counsel, we conclude that reversal is not required because the order on appeal was issued following a subsequent evidentiary hearing at which the father was represented by counsel (see generally Matter of Owens v Garner, 63 AD3d 1585, 1585–1586; Matter of Darryl B.W. v. Sharon M.W., 49 AD3d 1246, 1247).
Contrary to the father's further contention, the court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the children to award sole custody to the mother. The court's custody determination following a hearing is entitled to great deference (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173), “particularly in view of the hearing court's superior ability to evaluate the character and credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of Thillman v. Mayer, 85 AD3d 1624, 1625). Here, the court's written decision establishes that the court engaged in a “ ‘careful weighing of [the] appropriate factors' “ (Matter of Triplett v. Scott, 94 AD3d 1421, 1422), and the court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Betro v. Carbone, 5 AD3d 1110, 1110; Matter of Thayer v. Ennis, 292 A.D.2d 824, 825).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CAF 12–01312
Decided: December 27, 2013
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)