Opinion
2015-05-08
In the Matter of Chad SPRINGSTEAD, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Salina Winship BUNK, Respondent–Respondent.
Wagner & Hart, LLP, Olean (Janine Fodor of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant. Erickson Webb Scolton & Hajdu, Lakewood (Lyle T. Hajdu of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.
Wagner & Hart, LLP, Olean (Janine Fodor of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant. Erickson Webb Scolton & Hajdu, Lakewood (Lyle T. Hajdu of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.
Brownyn E. Enders, Attorney for the Child, Belfast.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
In this custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, petitioner father appeals from an order modifying a prior order and awarding sole legal and physical custody of the parties' son to respondent mother. We affirm.
We reject the father's contention that Family Court erred in admitting evidence concerning his criminal history and conduct while incarcerated. Inasmuch as “[a] parent's criminal history may militate against an award of custody” ( Matter of Nunn v. Bagley, 63 A.D.3d 1068, 1069, 880 N.Y.S.2d 561; see Matter of Tompkins v. Holmes, 27 A.D.3d 846, 847, 811 N.Y.S.2d 184; Hilton v. Hilton, 244 A.D.2d 902, 903, 665 N.Y.S.2d 203, lv. dismissed 91 N.Y.2d 922, 669 N.Y.S.2d 264, 692 N.E.2d 133), that evidence was relevant and properly admitted. In addition, the record establishes that the court “did not place undue emphasis on the father's past criminal convictions” or on his conduct while incarcerated ( Matter of Michaellica Lee W., 106 A.D.3d 639, 640, 965 N.Y.S.2d 504).
Contrary to the father's further contention, “there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support the court's determination that it was in the [child's] best interests to award sole custody to the mother, and thus we will not disturb that determination” ( Matter of Lawson v. Lawson, 111 A.D.3d 1393, 1393, 974 N.Y.S.2d 854; see Matter of Brown v. Wolfgram, 109 A.D.3d 1144, 1145, 971 N.Y.S.2d 715; Belec v. Belec, 103 A.D.3d 1089, 1089–1090, 958 N.Y.S.2d 558). The record establishes that the father “is less able than [the mother] to provide for the child's stability and physical, medical, educational, moral, and emotional well-being” ( Matter of Richard C.T. v. Helen R.G., 37 A.D.3d 1118, 1119, 830 N.Y.S.2d 424; see Matter of Weekley v. Weekley, 109 A.D.3d 1177, 1178–1179, 972 N.Y.S.2d 376; see generally Fox v. Fox, 177 A.D.2d 209, 210, 582 N.Y.S.2d 863).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.