Opinion
6554
05-15-2018
In re CALVIN B., Petitioner–Respondent, v. TIKEMA M., Respondent–Appellant.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant. Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the children. Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Linda Diaz of counsel), attorney for child Sarajia B.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the children.
Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Linda Diaz of counsel), attorney for child Sarajia B.
Richter, J.P., Andrias, Webber, Gesmer, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Emily M. Olshansky, J.), entered on or about June 26, 2017, which, inter alia, awarded physical and legal custody of the subject children to petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent offers no grounds on which to disturb Family Court's determination that it is in the children's best interests to be in petitioner's custody (see Matter of James Joseph M. v. Rosana R., 32 A.D.3d 725, 821 N.Y.S.2d 168 [1st Dept. 2006], lv denied 7 N.Y.3d 717, 827 N.Y.S.2d 688, 860 N.E.2d 990 [2006] ; Domestic Relations Law § 240[a] ). The determination is based on the court's credibility assessments and has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and therefore is entitled to great deference (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ; Matter of Conforti v. Conforti, 46 A.D.3d 877, 848 N.Y.S.2d 359 [2d Dept. 2007] ). The court properly assessed the relevant factors, which include the maintenance of stability in the children's lives, the parents' relative fitness, the quality of the home environment, and the competence of parental guidance (see Matter of McGivney v. Wright, 298 A.D.2d 642, 643, 748 N.Y.S.2d 794 [3d Dept. 2002], lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 508, 757 N.Y.S.2d 819, 787 N.E.2d 1165 [2003] ; see also Matter of Whitley v. Whitley, 33 A.D.3d 810, 822 N.Y.S.2d 626 [2d Dept. 2006], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 809, 834 N.Y.S.2d 90, 865 N.E.2d 1257 [2007] ). Respondent's argument that the court did not adequately account for her loving relationship or bond with the children is belied by the court's decision to maintain the existing visitation arrangement, which gives respondent time with the children nearly equal to petitioner's, and not to disturb respondent's significant involvement in the children's medical care and education.