Opinion
2011-10-4
In the Matter of Melsone R. GASBY, respondent,v.Jennine W. CHUNG, appellant.
Cheryl Charles Duval, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.Melsone R. Gasby, Brooklyn, N.Y., respondent pro se (no brief filed).
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Sheares, J.), dated May 27, 2010, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the child and denied her cross petition for sole custody of the child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“The court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child” ( Matter of Quinones v. Gonzalez, 79 A.D.3d 893, 894, 912 N.Y.S.2d 432; see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260). As custody determinations depend in large part on an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, the Family Court's findings should not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260; Matter of Kreischer v. Perry, 83 A.D.3d 841, 924 N.Y.S.2d 794; Matter of Quinones v. Gonzalez, 79 A.D.3d at 894, 912 N.Y.S.2d 432).
Here, the Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served by awarding sole custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Peoples v. Bideau, 85 A.D.3d 798, 924 N.Y.S.2d 843; Pierre–Paul v. Boursiquot, 74 A.D.3d 935, 936, 903 N.Y.S.2d 94; Matter of Ramirez v. Velez, 78 A.D.3d 1062, 911 N.Y.S.2d 466; Matter of Paul v. Sawyer, 78 A.D.3d 710, 711, 911 N.Y.S.2d 383). Based on the parents' testimony and credibility, the Family Court found, inter alia, that the father was more willing than the mother to assure meaningful contact between the child and the other parent ( see Matter of Kreischer v. Perry, 83 A.D.3d at 842, 924 N.Y.S.2d 794; Matter of Pappas v. Kells, 77 A.D.3d 952, 953–954, 909 N.Y.S.2d 157). Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court did not improperly fail to consider her allegations of domestic violence, as the Family Court, in effect, resolved the parents' conflicting testimony in favor of the father and, accordingly, the mother's allegations were not supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence ( see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1]; Pierre–Paul v. Boursiquot, 74 A.D.3d at 936, 903 N.Y.S.2d 94;
Matter of Khaykin v. Kanayeva, 47 A.D.3d 817, 817–818, 849 N.Y.S.2d 646).
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, HALL and COHEN, JJ., concur.