Opinion
12-02-2015
In the Matter of Marialena ELTALKHAWY, appellant, v. Mostafa ELTALKHAWY, respondent.
Ursula A. Gangemi, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Gilmer Law Firm, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (George M. Gilmer of counsel), for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Susan M. Cordaro and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the children.
Ursula A. Gangemi, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Gilmer Law Firm, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (George M. Gilmer of counsel), for respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Susan M. Cordaro and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the children.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County (Dean Kusakabe, J.), both dated May 20, 2014. The orders, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, awarded the father sole custody of the subject children in all areas of their lives except for religious decision making, awarded the parties joint custody of the subject children in the area of religious decision making, and awarded the mother certain parenting time.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In adjudicating custody issues, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of Perez v. Martinez, 52 A.D.3d 518, 519, 860 N.Y.S.2d 128 ). The Family Court's determination in a custody dispute is generally accorded great deference on appeal and should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record, as it is based upon a first-hand assessment of the parties, their credibility, character, and temperament (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of Perez v. Martinez, 52 A.D.3d at 519, 860 N.Y.S.2d 128 ; Matter of Tavarez v. Musse, 31 A.D.3d 458, 817 N.Y.S.2d 667 ).
Contrary to the mother's contentions, the Family Court properly considered the totality of the circumstances in determining that the best interests of the subject children would be served by, inter alia, awarding custody to the father, with parenting time to her (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of Ortega–Bejar v. Morante, 81 A.D.3d 962, 917 N.Y.S.2d 675 ; Matter of McCormick v. Dixon, 78 A.D.3d 708, 909 N.Y.S.2d 673 ; Matter of Edwards v. Crombie, 63 A.D.3d 926, 880 N.Y.S.2d 540 ). That determination is supported by the record, including the testimony of the parties, and the reports and testimony of the court-appointed neutral forensic evaluators. Since the Family Court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, it will not be disturbed (see Matter of Perez v. Martinez, 52 A.D.3d at 519, 860 N.Y.S.2d 128 ; Matter of Tavarez v. Musse, 31 A.D.3d 458, 817 N.Y.S.2d 667 ).
The mother's contention that she was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Viewed in totality, the record establishes that the mother received meaningful representation (see Matter of Haughton v. Tsang, 118 A.D.3d 883, 884, 987 N.Y.S.2d 244 ; Matter of Whitley v. Leonard, 5 A.D.3d 825, 827, 772 N.Y.S.2d 620 ).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.