From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Pinkerton v. Pensyl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 2, 2003
305 A.D.2d 1113 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

CAF 02-00665

May 2, 2003.

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Genesee County (Adams, J.), entered February 6, 2002, which, inter alia, transferred sole custody of the parties' children to petitioner.

CATHERINE JOHNS, BATAVIA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

LINDA G. BERGER, CLARENCE, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

JACQUELINE M. GRASSO, LAW GUARDIAN, BATAVIA, FOR DANIELLE P.

PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, KEHOE, AND GORSKI, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Family Court properly transferred sole custody of the parties' children to petitioner father, subject to visitation by respondent mother. The court's determination following a hearing that the transfer would be in the best interests of the children is entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is based on careful weighing of appropriate factors ( see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171-174; Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 93-95; Murek v. Murek [appeal No. 2] , 292 A.D.2d 839; Matter of Nunnery v. Nunnery, 275 A.D.2d 986, 987; Matter of Jensen v. Harris, 197 A.D.2d 917), including the court's firsthand assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and their witnesses ( see Nunnery, 275 A.D.2d at 987; Matter of King v. King, 251 A.D.2d 1028, 1029; Matter of Paul C. v. Tracy C., 209 A.D.2d 955, 956). We conclude that the court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Thayer v. Ennis, 292 A.D.2d 824, 825; Matter of Albert S. v. Pamela G.M., 291 A.D.2d 931; Matter of Green v. Mitchell, 266 A.D.2d 884) and that respondent is less fit than petitioner ( see Thayer, 292 A.D.2d at 825; Matter of Quarantillo v. Grainge, 272 A.D.2d 994) and less able to provide for the children's stability and physical, medical, educational, moral, and emotional well-being.

Contrary to the further contention of respondent, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying her motion for a change of venue ( see Matter of Hudson v. Villa, 204 A.D.2d 1033; Matter of Tavolacci v. Garges, 124 A.D.2d 734, 735-736; Matter of Young v. Morse, 92 A.D.2d 706; cf. Matter of Baccash v. Baccash, 231 A.D.2d 714, 715).


Summaries of

Matter of Pinkerton v. Pensyl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 2, 2003
305 A.D.2d 1113 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Matter of Pinkerton v. Pensyl

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF TERRY PINKERTON, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. LOUISE PENSYL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: May 2, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 1113 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 921

Citing Cases

Wideman v. Wideman

Contrary to the contention of plaintiff, the court did not err in refusing to award her primary physical…

Triplett v. Scott

The court's determination after a hearing that the best interests of the child are served by awarding sole…