Opinion
May 17, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The primary concern in a custody determination is the best interests of the children. The evaluation of the factors which enter into a custody determination is best made by the hearing court, which has had the opportunity to assess the evidence and credibility of the parties (see, Domestic Relations Law § 70; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 93-95; Trach v Trach, 162 A.D.2d 678; Mary M. v Albert M., 154 A.D.2d 354; Robinson v Robinson, 111 A.D.2d 316).
We find that the Supreme Court's determination awarding temporary custody to the plaintiff mother, while allowing the defendant father liberal visitation rights, was amply supported by the record and did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.