Opinion
December 27, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the eighth, ninth, and tenth decretal paragraphs thereof; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new determination of the defendant's child support obligations in accordance herewith and entry of an appropriate amended judgment.
We find no basis for disturbing the trial court's award of custody of the parties' daughters to the plaintiff mother. It is well settled that a trial court's determination with respect to the issue of child custody is to be accorded great respect and is not to be lightly set aside, involving as it does an assessment of the parties' credibility, character, and temperament (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167; Reiss v Reiss, 170 A.D.2d 589). The trial court was in the best position to assess the parties' conflicting assertions. Although the two psychological experts concluded that the children's best interests would be served by a change in the custodial arrangement, whereby the mother had primary custody for over four years, these experts agreed that both parents were loving, competent, and caring. Absent evidence that the custodial parent is unfit or less fit than the non-custodial parent, courts are reluctant to transfer custody of young children (see, Alan G. v Joan G., 104 A.D.2d 147, 153). Furthermore, it is clear from a review of the record that these expert witnesses based their recommendations in large part upon the 12-year-old child's professed preference. Although this is a factor to be considered, it is not determinative (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, supra, at 173; see also, Fox v Fox, 177 A.D.2d 209). To have given this factor the weight urged upon the court by these experts and the law guardian would have effectively permitted the 12-year-old child to dictate the custodial arrangement for herself and her younger sister (see, Fox v Fox, supra, 177 A.D.2d, at 212). Because the trial court's custody determination clearly has a sound and substantial basis in the record, it will not be disturbed on appeal (see, Nolfo v Nolfo, 188 A.D.2d 451; Matter of Garvin v Garvin, 176 A.D.2d 318).
In determining the defendant's child support obligation, the trial court made no findings with respect to its application of the statutory 25% child-support percentage to that portion of the parties' combined income in excess of $80,000, nor does the record provide a clear basis for determining the childrens' actual support needs. We therefore remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a de novo determination of the issue of child support (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [3]; Matter of Holmes v Holmes, 184 A.D.2d 185; Chasin v Chasin, 182 A.D.2d 862; Harmon v Harmon, 173 A.D.2d 98 ; Reiss v Reiss, 170 A.D.2d 589, supra; Quilty v Quilty, 169 A.D.2d 979).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.