Opinion
October 11, 2001.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2001, which, after a nonjury trial, directed that plaintiff-father shall have legal custody of the parties' child, with related relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Adria S. Hillman, for plaintiff-respondent.
R. Nicholas Gimbel, for defendant-appellant.
Jo Ann Douglas, for Guardian Ad Litem.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Lerner, Rubin, Saxe, Marlow, JJ.
The trial court correctly focused on the welfare and best interests of the child as the paramount consideration (see, Allen v. Farrow, 215 A.D.2d 137, 138), and we do not find that any crucial factor has been overlooked. Contrary to appellant's argument, the court directed equal parenting time, not joint legal custody (see, Matter of Spurck v. Spurck, 254 A.D.2d 546, 547-548). Defendant's allegations of judicial bias are without merit, and the record demonstrates that she was afforded a fair trial (see, Camperlengo v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 239 A.D.2d 150). Defendant's numerous disagreements with the trial court based on her self-serving view of the evidence do not furnish grounds to disturb the matrimonial court's various exercises of discretion or its factual determinations (see, Reik v. Reik, 280 A.D.2d 372, lv denied 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 1436). We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.