Opinion
15107
05-14-2015
In re LILIANA C., Petitioner–Respondent, v. JOSE M.C., Respondent–Appellant.
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, for appellant. Ira Treuhaft, New York, for respondent. Jay A. Maller, New York, attorney for the child.
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, for appellant.
Ira Treuhaft, New York, for respondent.
Jay A. Maller, New York, attorney for the child.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SAXE, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.
Opinion Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Referee), entered on or about June 13, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a hearing, granted petitioner mother's application for sole legal and physical custody of the subject child Ashley C., with visitation to respondent father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination that it was in the best interests of the child to award custody of her to the mother, consistent with the child's request. The father testified that the mother and he were unable to communicate or cooperate with each other, so joint custody was not a feasible option (see Braiman v. Braiman, 44 N.Y.2d 584, 589–590, 407 N.Y.S.2d 449, 378 N.E.2d 1019 [1978] ; see also Bliss v. Ach, 56 N.Y.2d 995, 998, 453 N.Y.S.2d 633, 439 N.E.2d 349 [1987] ). The father had moved out of state during the course of the proceedings, and an award of sole custody to him would have required uprooting the child from her home, sibling, friends and school, where she was doing well. Moreover, there is no support for the father's claim of gender bias on the part of the Referee (see Seborovski v. Kirschtein, 117 A.D.3d 627, 986 N.Y.S.2d 125 [1st Dept.2014] ).
We have considered the father's remaining arguments, including his claim that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel, and find them unavailing.