Opinion
May 22, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
While an appellate court's authority in custody matters is as broad as that of the trial court (see, Leistner v Leistner, 137 A.D.2d 499), it is widely accepted that custody decisions "[depend] to a very great extent upon the hearing court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties" (Alanna M. v Duncan M., 204 A.D.2d 409; see, Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776; Matter of Doyle v McLoughlin, 146 A.D.2d 940). Appellate courts must necessarily tread lightly before substituting "their own evaluation of these subjective factors for those of the nisi prius court * * * and if they do, should articulate the reasons for so doing" (Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173-174).
Where a hearing court has conducted a complete evidentiary hearing, its finding must be accorded great weight and its grant of custody should be allowed to stand unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record and is contrary to the weight of the evidence (Conti v Conti, 149 A.D.2d 395).
The essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interest of the child (see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89; Alanna M. v Duncan M., supra). The hearing court may require a change of custody if the totality of the circumstances warrants a modification and such a change is in the best interest of the child (see, Matter of Schimler v Schimler, 203 A.D.2d 580). Factors to be considered in determining the child's best interest include: "`the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child * * * the ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development * * * the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child * * * the relative fitness of the respective parents, and the length of time the present custody arrangements have been in effect'" (Matter of Lobo v Muttee, 196 A.D.2d 585, 587; see also, Eschbach v Eschbach, supra). Moreover, a court should be mindful that "the existence or absence of any one factor cannot be determinative on appellate review since the court is to consider the totality of the circumstances" (Eschbach v Eschbach, supra, at 174).
Here, the hearing court had the opportunity to observe the parties over an extended period of 13 days and received testimony from numerous individuals including the parties, two psychotherapists, and a court-appointed Law Guardian with responsibility to protect the children's interest (see, Matter of Vernon Mc. v Brenda N., 196 A.D.2d 823; Jacobs v Jacobs, 117 A.D.2d 709).
Based on the record before us, we find that the hearing court weighed the appropriate factors and properly awarded custody to the father (see, e.g., Kuncman v Kuncman, 188 A.D.2d 517). Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.