IN RE: Nicholas ACAMPORA (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Joan L. Piccirillo, J.), dated October 30, 2024.  The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, in effect, granted the father's petition for sole legal and residential custody of the parties' child, with certain parental access to the mother.

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

The parties have one child together, who was born in 2020.  In July 2022, the father commenced this proceeding for sole custody of the child.  In an order dated October 30, 2024, the Family Court, after a hearing, inter alia, awarded the father sole legal and residential custody of the child, with certain parental access to the mother.  The mother appeals.

The paramount concern in matters of custody and parental access is the best interests of the child under the totality of the circumstances (see Matter of Romero–Flores v. Hernandez, 214 A.D.3d 882, 882, 185 N.Y.S.3d 288;  Matter of Soto v. Marrero, 214 A.D.3d 814, 815, 183 N.Y.S.3d 759).  In determining the child's best interests, the court must consider, among other things, (1) which alternative will best promote stability;  (2) the available home environments;  (3) the past performance of each parent;  (4) each parent's relative fitness, including his or her ability to guide the child, provide for the child's overall well being, and foster the child's relationship with the noncustodial parent;  and (5) the child's desires (see Matter of Beale v. Patterson, 236 A.D.3d 900, 901, 228 N.Y.S.3d 686;  Matter of Sookchan v. Sookchan, 234 A.D.3d 779, 780, 224 N.Y.S.3d 577).  Inasmuch as a court's custody determination is dependent in large part upon its assessment of the witnesses' credibility and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, the court's custody determination will not be disturbed if it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Abraham v. Banaszek, 242 A.D.3d 878, 880, 243 N.Y.S.3d 144;  Agulnick v. Agulnick, 189 A.D.3d 956, 957, 136 N.Y.S.3d 326).

Here, the Family Court's determination is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.  Contrary to the mother's contention, the record demonstrated that the parties' relationship was so acrimonious that it effectively precluded joint decision-making such that joint legal custody of the child was inappropriate (see Matter of Clarke v. Clarke, 222 A.D.3d 751, 752, 202 N.Y.S.3d 226;  Matter of Cywiak v. Packman, 214 A.D.3d 654, 657, 184 N.Y.S.3d 167).  Moreover, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated, among other things, that the father was better suited to promote stability in the child's life and provide for his overall well being, as well as more likely to foster the child's relationship with the noncustodial parent (see Matter of Gleason v. Ireland, 240 A.D.3d 494, 496, 235 N.Y.S.3d 448;  Matter of Smisek v. DeSantis, 239 A.D.3d 867, 870, 234 N.Y.S.3d 293;  Matter of Eckstein v. Young, 176 A.D.3d 813, 815–816, 112 N.Y.S.3d 227).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly awarded the father sole legal and residential custody of the child, with certain parental access to the mother.

DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.