Opinion
March 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Following a lengthy hearing, the court granted custody of the parties' two children to the mother, and fixed visitation with the father according to a schedule submitted by him, with the limitation that visitation with his daughter was to be supervised. We now affirm.
The paramount concern in a custody determination is the best interests of the child (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240; see also, Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167). Among the factors to be considered in determining the child's best interests are the relative fitness of the parents, the respective parent's guidance and ability to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development, the quality of the home environment, and the existence of siblings (see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra, at 173; see also, Matter of Garvin v. Garvin, 176 A.D.2d 318). Although the authority of the Appellate Division in determining custody is as broad as that of the trial court, great deference is given to the trial court's findings, since its decision rests upon its first-hand assessment of the credibility, character, temperament and sincerity of the parties (see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra). The record is clear that the daughter appears to be developing well emotionally and has flourished in the mother's care. The mother, in turn, has demonstrated a positive desire to take proper care of the children and has taken many of the steps necessary to provide a stable environment. There is less certainty that the father will offer the same nurture and guidance. We are satisfied that the trial court considered the evidence in light of the relevant law, and that the court correctly determined that the daughter's best interests would be served by permitting physical custody to remain with the mother, while the father has supervised visitation.
It was also reasonable that custody of the younger sibling be transferred to the mother, so that the children can be together (see, Matter of Ebert v. Ebert, 38 N.Y.2d 700, 704; see also, Obey v. Degling, 37 N.Y.2d 768). Sullivan, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.