Opinion
2014-10-22
In the Matter of Jason BONET, appellant, v. Tiffany BONET, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Tiffany Bonet, respondent, v. Jason Bonet, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2).
Michael D. Meth, Chester, N.Y., for appellant. Rametta & Rametta, LLC, Goshen, N.Y. (Robert M. Rametta of counsel), for respondent.
Michael D. Meth, Chester, N.Y., for appellant. Rametta & Rametta, LLC, Goshen, N.Y. (Robert M. Rametta of counsel), for respondent.
John A. Pappalardo, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Currier Woods, J.), dated June 3, 2013, which, inter alia, after a hearing, denied his petition for sole custody of the parties' child, granted the mother's cross petition for sole custody of the child, and awarded the father supervised overnight visitation with the child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The award of custody to the mother was based on a determination of the best interests of the child under the totality of the circumstances ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260; Matter of Eison v. Eison, 119 A.D.3d 861, 989 N.Y.S.2d 383), including evidence of the father's erratic conduct and the forensic evaluation. The Family Court's determination that the best interests of the child would be served by an award of sole custody to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260; Matter of Gasby v. Chung, 88 A.D.3d 709, 709–710, 930 N.Y.S.2d 471; Matter of Quinones v. Gonzalez, 79 A.D.3d 893, 912 N.Y.S.2d 432). Further, the determination that the father's visitation should be supervised by the paternal grandmother was within the sound discretion of the Family Court, based upon the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Colter v. Baker, 104 A.D.3d 850, 961 N.Y.S.2d 491; Matter of Gooler v. Gooler, 107 A.D.3d 712, 713, 966 N.Y.S.2d 208).
Any error in failing to set forth the facts in the order appealed from does not constitute grounds for reversal or modification, since the record contains a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court's determination and is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence ( see Matter of Destiny H. [Valerie B.], 83 A.D.3d 939, 920 N.Y.S.2d 716; Matter of Deegan v. Deegan, 35 A.D.3d 736, 737, 824 N.Y.S.2d 917; Minas v. Shevlin, 254 A.D.2d 420, 421, 678 N.Y.S.2d 672).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.