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: Mindy Lee Quinones, appellant, v. Eric Gonzalez, respondent.
Submitted-November 23, 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, Suffolk County (Tarantino, Jr., J.), dated March 10, 2009, which, after a hearing, denied her petition for sole custody of the parties' child and granted the father's cross petition for sole custody of the child.
ORDERED the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171; Matter of Otero v. Nieves, 77 AD3d 756; Matter of Wakefield v. Wakefield, 74 AD3d 1213). Moreover, inasmuch as custody determinations depend in large part on an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, the Family Court's findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Garcia v. Becerra, 68 AD3d 864; Matter of Bonilla v. Amaya, 58 AD3d 728). The Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served by awarding sole custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Roldan v. Nieves, 76 AD3d 634; Matter of McDonough v. McDonough, 73 AD3d 1067, 1068).
As there was no prior custody order in effect at the time this proceeding was commenced, the Family Court was not required to engage in a change-of-circumstances analysis (see Matter of Louis M. v Administration for Children's Servs., 69 AD3d 633, 634; Matter of Khaykin v. Kanayeva, 47 AD3d 817; Matter of Anson v. Anson, 20 AD3d 603, 603-604; cf. Matter of Jiminez v. Jiminez, 301 A.D.2d 971, 972). The temporary custody order issued during the pendency of this proceeding without the benefit of a full plenary hearing is only one factor relevant to the ultimate determination of custody (see Matter of Bessette v. Pelton, 29 AD3d 1085, 1087; Matter of Anson v. Anson, 20 AD3d at 603-604; Matter of Bruce BB. v. Debra CC., 307 A.D.2d 408, 409).
COVELLO, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, DICKERSON and BELEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
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: 2009-03451 (Docket Nos. V-7346-07, V-8504-07)
Decided: December 14, 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)