Opinion
1244
May 27, 2003.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Elizabeth Barnett, Referee), entered on or about June 21, 2002, which denied the petition to modify a prior joint custody award to grant sole custody to petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Stanley Cembalest, for petitioner-appellant.
I. Frederick Shotkin, for respondent-respondent.
Stephen H. Schwartz, for appellant.
Before: Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman, JJ.
The court's determination, after hearing and weighing all the evidence, that it was in the child's best interests that the joint custody arrangement continue, is supported by a sound basis in the record and we see no basis to disturb the court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171; Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 94; Matter of Clara L. v. Paul M., 251 A.D.2d 22). Given the record before it, the court properly treated the child's preference to live with petitioner as nondispositive (see Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 173; Matter of Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 260 A.D.2d 671, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 811; Matter of Clara L., supra;Matter of Olimpia M. v. Steven M., 228 A.D.2d 270). The court's rejection of petitioner's belated application for an in camera interview of the child, after petitioner had initially opposed respondent's application for such an interview, was a proper exercise of discretion (see Matter of Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 N.Y.2d 270; Matter of Farnham v. Farnham, 252 A.D.2d 675, 677), especially since the child's preference had been made known to the court through the law guardian's witness and the law guardian took no position with respect to the application. Although the recommendations of professional witnesses and the law guardian are important and generally should not lightly be disregarded, they were for sound reasons well-founded in the record properly discounted by the court in this matter (see Matter of McCoy v. McCoy, 277 A.D.2d 384; Matter of Daniels v. Guntert, 256 A.D.2d 940).
We have reviewed appellants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.