IN RE: Scott ARTIS (2007)

In related custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (MacKenzie, J.), dated October 17, 2005, which, after a hearing, awarded custody of the parties' children to the father and established a visitation schedule pursuant to the parties' stipulation.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as established a visitation schedule is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order entered on the consent of the parties;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

 The best interests of the child are the essential consideration in making an award of custody (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;  Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 447 N.Y.S.2d 893, 432 N.E.2d 765;  Allain v. Allain, 35 A.D.3d 513, 826 N.Y.S.2d 411;  Matter of Perez v. Montanez, 31 A.D.3d 565, 817 N.Y.S.2d 677;  Matter of Canazon v. Canazon, 215 A.D.2d 652, 628 N.Y.S.2d 327;  Alanna M. v. Duncan M., 204 A.D.2d 409, 611 N.Y.S.2d 886).   Here, the court properly considered the relative stability and environment of both parties in making its custody determination.

 The Family Court's decision to conduct an in camera interview of only one of the subject children due to the other child's very young age and neither party's request for such interview (see Matter of Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 N.Y.2d 270, 272, 299 N.Y.S.2d 842, 247 N.E.2d 659;  Matter of Galanos v. Galanos, 28 A.D.3d 554, 816 N.Y.S.2d 90, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 711, 823 N.Y.S.2d 770, 857 N.E.2d 65;  Matter of Picot v. Barrett, 8 A.D.3d 288, 777 N.Y.S.2d 698) was a provident exercise of discretion.

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.