Opinion
2020–09617 Docket Nos. V–15348–17, V–18625–17
09-29-2021
In the Matter of Marcos A. GARRICK, Jr., appellant, v. Zakiya Kerina SIMON, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Zakiya Kerina Simon, respondent, v. Marcos A. Garrick, Jr., appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
Peter C. Lomtevas, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. Mary Katherine Brown, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Rachel J. Stanton and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the child.
Peter C. Lomtevas, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Mary Katherine Brown, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Rachel J. Stanton and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the child.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lisa J. Friederwitzer, J.), dated December 2, 2020. The order, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for sole legal and residential custody of the parties’ child and, in effect, denied the father's petition for sole legal and residential custody of the parties’ child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of Olea v. Diaz, 194 A.D.3d 721, 143 N.Y.S.3d 583 ; Matter of Pitkanen v. Huscher, 167 A.D.3d 901, 90 N.Y.S.3d 249 ; Matter of Klein v. Theus, 143 A.D.3d 984, 985, 39 N.Y.S.3d 529 ). Inasmuch as a court's custody determination is dependent in large part upon its assessment of the witnesses’ credibility and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, the court's exercise of its discretion will not be disturbed if supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Supangkat v. Torres, 101 A.D.3d 889, 890, 954 N.Y.S.2d 915 ; Matter of Reyes v. Polanco, 83 A.D.3d 849, 850, 922 N.Y.S.2d 104 ). Here, the Family Court's determination that the best interests of the parties’ child would be served by awarding sole legal and residential custody to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Murphy v. Lewis, 149 A.D.3d 748, 749, 51 N.Y.S.3d 155 ; Matter of Goodman v. Jones, 146 A.D.3d 884, 886, 45 N.Y.S.3d 192 ; Matter of McPherson v. McPherson, 139 A.D.3d 953, 954, 30 N.Y.S.3d 705 ).
The father's contention that the Family Court should have ordered a forensic evaluation is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit, as the record does not indicate that a forensic evaluation was necessary to enable the court to reach its determination (see Matter of Siegell v. Iqbal, 181 A.D.3d 951, 952, 122 N.Y.S.3d 328 ; Matter of Quinones v. Quinones, 139 A.D.3d 1072, 1074, 32 N.Y.S.3d 607 ).
The father's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review.
CHAMBERS, J.P., CONNOLLY, ZAYAS and DOWLING, JJ., concur.