Majority
During the pendency of this appeal, one of the children, Sarnia B., turned 18 years of age. As such, she is no longer subject to
“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” (Matter of Julie v Wills, 73 AD3d 777 , 777 [2010]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 , 171 [1982]; Matter of Harry v Harry, 92 AD3d 883 , 884 [2012]; Haggerty v Haggerty, 78 AD3d 998 , 999 [2010]). “Because custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded to the trial court’s findings, and such findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Otero v Nieves, 77 AD3d 756 , 756-757 [2010]; see Matter of Harry v Harry, 92 AD3d at 884 ; Haggerty v Haggerty, 78 AD3d at 999 ). Here, the Family Court’s award of sole custody to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Harry v Harry, 92 AD3d at 884 ; Matter of Peoples v Bideau, 85 AD3d 798 [2011]; Matter of Cavallero v Pena, 83 AD3d 1062 , 1063 [2011]).
Moreover, contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court possessed adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to the subject children’s best interests (see Matter of Patterson v Patterson, 92 AD3d 682 , 683 [2012]). Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Bartley v. Pringle 90 AD3d 653 p. 671
- Brown v. Jimenez 88 AD3d 875 at 876 p. 671
- Merando v. Vantassel 66 AD3d 783 p. 671
- Julie v. Wills 73 AD3d 777 at 777 p. 671
- Eschbach v. Eschbach 56 NY2d 167 at 171 p. 671
- Harry v. Harry 92 AD3d 883 at 884 p. 671
- Haggerty v. Haggerty 78 AD3d 998 at 999 p. 671
- Otero v. Nieves 77 AD3d 756 at 756-757 p. 671
- Cavallero v. Pena 83 AD3d 1062 at 1063 p. 671