Opinion
2014-06-18
In the Matter of Christy HAUGHTON, appellant, v. Jeffrey TSANG, Sr., respondent.
Marina M. Martielli, East Quogue, N.Y., for appellant. Nicholas A. Coronel, Central Islip, N.Y., for respondent.
Marina M. Martielli, East Quogue, N.Y., for appellant. Nicholas A. Coronel, Central Islip, N.Y., for respondent.
Kenneth J. Molloy, Central Islip, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (James, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated September 21, 2012, which, after a hearing, denied her petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation of the same court dated June 18, 2009, so as to allow her to relocate with the parties' two children to Florida.
ORDERED that the order dated September 21, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
When reviewing a custodial parent's petition for leave to relocate with children, the court's primary focus must be on the best interests of those children ( see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 739, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145;Diaz v. Diaz, 115 A.D.3d 743, 981 N.Y.S.2d 619;Kime v. Kime, 302 A.D.2d 564, 755 N.Y.S.2d 630;Harmon v. Harmon, 254 A.D.2d 456, 679 N.Y.S.2d 155). Furthermore, “ ‘[s]ince the Family Court's ... determination is largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament and sincerity of the parents, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of Grossman v. Grossman, 5 A.D.3d 486, 486–487, 772 N.Y.S.2d 559, quoting Matter of Plaza v. Plaza, 305 A.D.2d 607, 607, 759 N.Y.S.2d 368). The Family Court, upon weighing the appropriate factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145, properly determined that relocation was not in the children's best interests.
The mother's contention that she was deprived of effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Viewed in totality, the record establishes that the mother received meaningful representation ( see Matter of Darrell W. [Tenika C.], 110 A.D.3d 1088, 1089, 974 N.Y.S.2d 85;Matter of Dylan Mc. [Michelle M. Mc.], 105 A.D.3d 1049, 1050, 964 N.Y.S.2d 209;Matter of Christiana C. [Carleton C.], 86 A.D.3d 606, 607–608, 928 N.Y.S.2d 50). SKELOS, J.P., LOTT, ROMAN and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.