IN RE: Karim Elnour (2026)

Submitted—June 15, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Nisha Menon, J.), dated September 25, 2025.  The order, inter alia, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child, and denied the father's petition, in effect, for sole legal and joint physical custody of the child.

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

The parties have one child in common, born in 2022.  In March 2023, the father filed a petition, in effect, for sole legal and joint physical custody of the child.  In May 2023, the mother filed a petition for sole legal and physical custody of the child.  The Family Court thereafter conducted a hearing on the petitions.  In an order dated September 25, 2025, the court, inter alia, granted the mother's petition, awarding her sole legal and physical custody of the child, and denied the father's petition.  The father appeals.

In any child custody dispute, the court's paramount concern 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 Volcy–Thelisma v. Nwabunor, 248 AD3d 1128, 1129).  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 Volcy–Thelisma v. Nwabunor, 248 AD3d at 1129).  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 supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Milton P. v. Lynita G., 248 AD3d 794, 796).

Joint custody of a child is inappropriate where the parties are antagonistic toward each other and have demonstrated an inability to cooperate on matters concerning the child (see Matter of Volcy–Thelisma v. Nwabunor, 248 AD3d at 1129).  “Where domestic violence is demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence, the court must consider the effect of such domestic violence upon the best interests of the child” (Matter of Glaser v. Dougherty, 249 AD3d 1049, 1051, citing Domestic Relations Law § 240[1][a];  see Matter of Milton P. v. Lynita G., 248 AD3d at 796).

Here, contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court's conclusion that joint physical custody was not appropriate under the circumstances has a sound and substantial basis in the record.  The court, having the benefit of observing and listening to the witnesses firsthand, credited the mother's testimony concerning acts of domestic violence committed by the father, and found that his denials thereof lacked veracity (see Matter of Gregoire v. Yadram, 177 AD3d 616, 618).  Further, the court's determination awarding the mother sole legal and physical custody of the child is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.  The evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated, among other things, that the mother was more likely to promote stability in the child's life and more likely to foster the child's relationship with the noncustodial parent (see Matter of Volcy–Thelisma v. Nwabunor, 248 AD3d at 1130).

The father's remaining contentions are either without merit or based on matters dehors the record.

CONNOLLY, J.P., VOUTSINAS, GOLIA and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court