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: Angelo Roldan, respondent, v. Maribel Nieves, appellant.
Submitted-June 21, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Singer, J.), dated April 6, 2009, which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the child and awarded her only supervised visitation.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a determination of custody is in the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171; Matter of Nikolic v. Ingrassia, 47 AD3d 819). Custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, and where a full evidentiary hearing has been held on the child's best interests, the resultant findings will not be lightly set aside on appeal (see Petek v. Petek, 239 A.D.2d 327). The Family Court's findings should be accorded deference and its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 173-174; Salvatore v. Salvatore, 68 AD3d 966; Matter of Berkham v. Vessia, 63 AD3d 1155).
Here, contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's finding that the child's best interests would be served by an award of sole custody to the father, with supervised visitation to the mother, has a sound and substantial basis in the record.
SKELOS, J.P., HALL, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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: 2009-03848 (Docket No. V-03646-06)
Decided: August 17, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)