Opinion
2000-11348
Argued February 25, 2002.
April 1, 2002.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated June 23, 1999, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated October 20, 2000, which, inter alia, awarded custody of the parties' infant child to the defendant, and limited his visitation rights.
McNamee, Lochner, Titus Williams, P.C., Albany, N.Y. (Bruce J. Wagner of counsel), for appellant.
McCarthy, Fingar, Donovan, Drazen Smith, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Kathleen Donelli of counsel), for respondent.
Warren L. Millman, New York, N.Y., Law Guardian for the child.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"A custody determination is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and is accorded great deference on appeal as the trial court had the opportunity to assess the witnesses' demeanor and credibility" (Kelly-Milone v. Milone, 256 A.D.2d 554; see also Maloney v. Maloney, 208 A.D.2d 603; Matter of Garvin v. Garvin, 176 A.D.2d 318). The trial court, upon consideration of all of the relevant circumstances, must determine what is in the best interests of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 240; Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89; Matter of Johnson v. Cole, 287 A.D.2d 632). The Supreme Court's determination that the best interests of the child would be served by awarding custody to the defendant has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167; cf. Matter of Chebuske v. Burnhard-Vogt, 284 A.D.2d 456).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, neither party sought joint custody. In any event, joint custody is inappropriate in this case because "the parties have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to cooperate in making decisions on matters relating to the care and welfare" of their child (Forzano v. Scuderi, 224 A.D.2d 385, 386; see also Bliss v. Ach, 56 N.Y.2d 995; Tesler v. Tesler, 228 A.D.2d 491).
The appellant's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this court.
O'BRIEN, J.P., LUCIANO, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.