Opinion
253 CAF 16–01941
03-16-2018
In the Matter of Justin S. TALBOT, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Crystal EDICK, Respondent–Appellant.
JOHN A. HERBOWY, ROME, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. MICHELLE K. FASSETT, HERKIMER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
JOHN A. HERBOWY, ROME, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MICHELLE K. FASSETT, HERKIMER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent mother appeals from an order that awarded petitioner father sole custody of the parties' child, with supervised visitation with the mother. We affirm. The mother does not dispute that an award of sole custody is appropriate, but she contends that Family Court should have awarded sole custody to her rather than to the father. We reject that contention. In making a custody determination, "the court must consider all factors that could impact the best interests of the child, including the existing custody arrangement, the current home environment, the financial status of the parties, the ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development and the wishes of the child" ( Matter ofMarino v. Marino, 90 A.D.3d 1694, 1695, 935 N.Y.S.2d 818 [4th Dept. 2011] ; see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ). Here, we will not disturb the court's determination "inasmuch as the record establishes that it is the product of the court's ‘careful weighing of [the] appropriate factors' ..., and it has a sound and substantial basis in the record" ( Matter ofThillman v. Mayer, 85 A.D.3d 1624, 1625, 926 N.Y.S.2d 779 [4th Dept. 2011] ; see Matter ofJoyce S. v. Robert W.S., 142 A.D.3d 1343, 1344, 38 N.Y.S.3d 300 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 906, 2017 WL 1730862 [2017] ). Furthermore, we reject the mother's contention that the court erred in imposing supervised visitation, inasmuch as that determination is also supported by the requisite sound and substantial basis in the record (see Joyce S., 142 A.D.3d at 1344–1345, 38 N.Y.S.3d 300 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.