Opinion
2013-09-27
In the Matter of Christal L. BUTTON, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Richard J. ALLEN, Respondent–Respondent. In the Matter of Richard J. Allen, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Christal L. Button, Respondent–Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Timothy K. Mattison, J.H.O.), entered March 27, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order awarded the parties joint custody, awarded primary physical custody of two children to Richard J. Allen and awarded primary physical custody of one child to Christal L. Button. Davison Law Office PLLC, Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant and Respondent–Appellant. Betzjitomir & Baxter, LLP, Bath (Susan Betzjitomir of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent and Petitioner–Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Timothy K. Mattison, J.H.O.), entered March 27, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order awarded the parties joint custody, awarded primary physical custody of two children to Richard J. Allen and awarded primary physical custody of one child to Christal L. Button.
Davison Law Office PLLC, Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant and Respondent–Appellant. Betzjitomir & Baxter, LLP, Bath (Susan Betzjitomir of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent and Petitioner–Respondent.
Samantha Peters Smith, Attorney for the Children, Canisteo.
Vivian Clara Strache, Attorney for the Child, Bath.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner-respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children, awarded primary physical custody of the parties' sons to respondent-petitioner father and awarded primary physical custody of the parties' daughter to the mother. On appeal, the mother contends that Family Court abused its discretion in awarding primary physical custody of the parties' sons to the father because splitting physical placement of the children is not in their best interests. We reject that contention. The court's custody determination following a hearing is entitled to great deference ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173–174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260). We will not disturb the custody determination here inasmuch as the court made extensive factual findings that are supported by the record and “that warrant the conclusion that the needs of each of the children will best be met by the court's disposition” (Matter of Roulo v. Roulo, 201 A.D.2d 937, 937–938, 607 N.Y.S.2d 760).
*719It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.