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: Michael Tinger, appellant, v. Heather Tinger, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Heather Tinger, respondent, v Michael Tinger, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
Argued—May 21, 2013
DECISION & ORDER
Marc A. Berk, Staten Island, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Oakes, Ct.Atty.Ref.), dated June 14, 2012, which, after a hearing, awarded the mother sole custody of the parties' children, and (2) an order of the same court, also dated June 14, 2012, which granted the mother's motion for attorney's fees.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
“In making an initial custody determination, the courts must consider the best interests of the child by reviewing such factors as maintaining stability for the child, the child's wishes, the home environment with each parent, each parent's past performance, relative fitness, ability to guide and provide for the child's overall well-being, and the willingness of each parent to foster a relationship with the other parent” (Matter of Swinson v. Brewington, 84 AD3d 1251, 1253 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). “ ‘Custody determinations are ordinarily a matter of discretion for the hearing court, whose determination will not be set aside on appeal unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of Williams v. Dowgiallo, 90 AD3d 942, 943, quoting Matter of Ortiz v. Maharaj, 8 AD3d 574, 574). Here, the Family Court's determination that the children's best interests would be served by awarding sole custody to the mother had a sound and substantial basis in the record.
Furthermore, the award of attorney's fees to the mother was a provident exercise of discretion (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[b]; Matter of Baribault v. Sauvola, 101 AD3d 865, 866), “based on the financial circumstances of the parties and the circumstances of the case as a whole,” including the relative merits of the parties' positions (Matter of O'Neil v. O'Neil, 193 A.D.2d 16, 20).
RIVERA, J.P., DILLON, DICKERSON and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
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: 2012–06284 2012–06285 (Docket Nos. V–5628–30 /09, V–5739–41 /09)
Decided: July 03, 2013
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)