Opinion
2013-06-5
In the Matter of Francis I. GOOLER, respondent, v. Kristina L. GOOLER, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Kristina L. Gooler, appellant, v. Francis I. Gooler, respondent. (Proceedings No. 2 and 3).
Edward C. Bruno, Pine Bush, N.Y., for appellant. John F.X. Burke, Goshen, N.Y., for respondent.
Edward C. Bruno, Pine Bush, N.Y., for appellant. John F.X. Burke, Goshen, N.Y., for respondent.
Ronna L. DeLoe, New Rochelle, N.Y., attorney for the children.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
In related child custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, and a related family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), dated July 5, 2011, as, after a hearing, awarded the father sole custody of the subject children, and limited her contact with the children to supervised visitation.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, 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” ( Matter of Julie v. Wills, 73 A.D.3d 777, 777, 899 N.Y.S.2d 669;see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;Matter of Maraj v. Gordon, 102 A.D.3d 698, 957 N.Y.S.2d 717;Matter of Julian B. v. Williams, 97 A.D.3d 670, 948 N.Y.S.2d 399;Matter of Purse v. Crocker, 95 A.D.3d 1216, 944 N.Y.S.2d 648;Matter of Awan v. Awan, 63 A.D.3d 733, 734, 880 N.Y.S.2d 683). Since custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded to the trial court's findings, and such findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Harry v. Harry, 92 A.D.3d 883, 884, 938 N.Y.S.2d 808;Haggerty v. Haggerty, 78 A.D.3d 998, 999, 911 N.Y.S.2d 639; Matter of Otero v. Nieves, 77 A.D.3d 756, 756–757, 908 N.Y.S.2d 603;Matter of Conforti v. Conforti, 46 A.D.3d 877, 877–878, 848 N.Y.S.2d 359). Here, the Supreme Court's determination that the children's best interests would be served by awarding sole custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed ( see Matter of Gasby v. Chung, 88 A.D.3d 709, 709–710, 930 N.Y.S.2d 471;Matter of Quinones v. Gonzalez, 79 A.D.3d 893, 912 N.Y.S.2d 432).
Additionally, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in ordering the mother's visitation to be supervised ( see Matter of Colter v. Baker, 104 A.D.3d 850, 961 N.Y.S.2d 491;Matter of Anaya v. Hundley, 12 A.D.3d 594, 785 N.Y.S.2d 479). The determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to the court's sound discretion, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Binong Xu v. Sullivan, 91 A.D.3d 771, 771–772, 936 N.Y.S.2d 569;Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d 837, 839, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658). Here, given the totality of the circumstances, unsupervised visitation with the mother is not in the children's best interests ( see Matter of Grant v. Terry, 104 A.D.3d 854, 961 N.Y.S.2d 304;Matter of Bullinger v. Costa, 63 A.D.3d 735, 880 N.Y.S.2d 336;Matter of Powell v. Blumenthal, 35 A.D.3d 615, 827 N.Y.S.2d 187;Matter of Abranko v. Vargas, 26 A.D.3d 490, 491, 810 N.Y.S.2d 509).