Summary
affirming primary custody with mother, who had been primary caregiver, worked near the children's school and left work shortly after school ended, whereas father had a long work schedule and the children would be unattended by him for a significant amount of time
Summary of this case from Silva v. SilvaOpinion
April 29, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Modugno, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the husband's argument, we find no reason to disturb the Supreme Court's determination awarding custody of the two minor children to the wife. It is well settled that an award of custody is a matter of discretion for the hearing court and its decision is entitled to great weight (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173; Matter of Diane L. v. Richard L., 151 A.D.2d 760, 761). The record indicates, inter alia, that the husband has a long work schedule, and the children would be unattended by him for a significant amount of time. In contrast, the wife works very close to the children's school and leaves work at 4:00 P.M., shortly after school ends. In addition, the wife has been the primary caregiver for the greater part of the children's lives. Under these circumstances, custody of the children was properly awarded to the wife.
Nor did the court err in awarding the wife exclusive possession of the marital residence until the youngest child reaches the age of majority (see, Pacillo v. Pacillo, 155 A.D.2d 736; Cassano v Cassano, 111 A.D.2d 208, 210; Damiano v. Damiano, 94 A.D.2d 132, 135).
We have examined the husband's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, Pacillo v. Pacillo, supra; Knapp v Knapp, 105 A.D.2d 1019, 1020; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [8] [a]; [1] [c]; [d] [1]). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.