From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Griffin v. Scott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 10, 2003
303 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-04001

Submitted February 18, 2003.

March 10, 2003.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Sweeney, J.), dated April 25, 2002, as, after a hearing, denied his petition for a change of custody of the subject child from the mother to him.

Dorothy A. Courten, Hauppauge, N.Y., for appellant.

Certilman Balin, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Meredith W. Ayres of counsel), for respondent.

Kathy B. Small, Hauppauge, N.Y., Law Guardian for the child.

Before: GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, J.P., THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in making any award of custody (see Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 94; Matter of Sullivan v. Sullivan, 190 A.D.2d 852; Matter of Ellen K. v. John K., 186 A.D.2d 656). Because any custody determination necessarily depends to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded the trial court's findings (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167; Matter of Sullivan v. Sullivan, supra). Its findings "will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Kuncman v. Kuncman, 188 A.D.2d 517, 518). Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the Family Court's determination has a sound and substantial basis.

Moreover, the Family Court was not required to follow the recommendations of the forensic examiner and the Law Guardian (see Berstell v. Krasa-Berstell, 272 A.D.2d 566; Matter of Hopkins v. Wilkerson, 255 A.D.2d 319). The Family Court did not arbitrarily disregard the expert opinion offered in this case (see Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114). Rather, its reasons for rejecting the recommendations were fully explained and its reasoning is supported by the record (see Matter of Hopkins v. Wilkerson, supra).

GOLDSTEIN, J.P., ADAMS, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Griffin v. Scott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 10, 2003
303 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In the Matter of Griffin v. Scott

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF LISA GRIFFIN, respondent, v. SALVATORE SCOTT, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 10, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 437

Citing Cases

Vaysman v. Conroy

Moreover, in considering a forensic evaluator's recommendation, the court must take into account the quality…

T.F. v. N.F.

The court heard from essentially only two substantive witnesses during the trial, the plaintiff, and the…