IN RE: Raheem SMALLS (2009)

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated June 17, 2008, which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the subject child.

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

 “[A] court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a transfer of custody is in the best interests of the child” (Musachio v. Musachio, 53 A.D.3d 600, 601, 862 N.Y.S.2d 376;  see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;  Matter of Fallarino v. Ayala, 41 A.D.3d 714, 714-715, 838 N.Y.S.2d 176).   Among the factors to be considered are “(1) the original placement of the child, (2) the length of that placement, (3) the child's desires, (4) the relative fitness of the parents, (5) the quality of the home environment, (6) the parental guidance given to the child, (7) the parent's financial status, and (8) his or her ability to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development” (Cuccurullo v. Cuccurullo, 21 A.D.3d 983, 984, 801 N.Y.S.2d 360;  see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 171-173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;  Miller v. Pipia, 297 A.D.2d 362, 364, 746 N.Y.S.2d 729).  “Since custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, the findings of the Family Court will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Conforti v. Conforti, 46 A.D.3d 877, 877-878, 848 N.Y.S.2d 359;  see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;  Matter of Fallarino v. Ayala, 41 A.D.3d at 715, 838 N.Y.S.2d 176).

 The Family Court's determination that the best interests of the child would be served by a change of custody to the father is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed (see Matter of Gilmartin v. Abbas, 60 A.D.3d 1058, 877 N.Y.S.2d 347;  Matter of Timosa v. Chase, 21 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 803 N.Y.S.2d 575).   The evidence presented at the hearing established, inter alia, that the father is better equipped to provide for the daily needs and emotional and educational development of this special needs child (see Matter of Ganzenmuller v. Rivera, 40 A.D.3d 756, 757, 835 N.Y.S.2d 673;  Matter of Sienkwicz v. Sienkwicz, 298 A.D.2d 396, 751 N.Y.S.2d 398).