Opinion
2019–06696 Docket Nos. V–21640–18, V–21639–18, V–13352–16, V–13351–16
10-21-2020
In the Matter of Ashminie RAVELLO, respondent, v. Dyon RAVELLO, appellant. (Proceeding Nos. 1 and 2) In the Matter of Dyon Ravello, appellant, v. Ashminie Ravello, respondent. (Proceeding Nos. 3 and 4)
Christian P. Myrill, Jamaica, NY, for appellant. Elliot Green, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent. Aguwa & Metu, P.C., Jamaica, N.Y. (Placidus Aguwa of counsel), attorney for the children.
Christian P. Myrill, Jamaica, NY, for appellant.
Elliot Green, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent.
Aguwa & Metu, P.C., Jamaica, N.Y. (Placidus Aguwa of counsel), attorney for the children.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Craig Ramseur, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated May 14, 2019. The order, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the parties' children, in effect, denied the father's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the children, and awarded the father certain parental access.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties are the parents of two children, born in 2013 and 2014, respectively. The father and the mother each petitioned for sole legal and physical custody of the children. By order dated May 14, 2019, the Family Court, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition, in effect, denied the father's petition, and awarded the father certain parental access. The father appeals.
The primary concern in a custody dispute is the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of Ednie v. Haniquet, 185 A.D.3d 1029, 128 N.Y.S.3d 282 ; Matter of Montebello v. Montebello, 184 A.D.3d 565, 123 N.Y.S.3d 539 ; Matter of Saunders v. Scott, 172 A.D.3d 724, 100 N.Y.S.3d 40 ). Among the factors to be considered in determining the best interests of the child are the relative fitness of each parent and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent (see Craig v. Williams–Craig, 61 A.D.3d 712, 876 N.Y.S.2d 650 ). Additionally, where domestic violence is demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence, the court must consider the effect of such domestic violence upon the best interests of the child (see Matter of Cassissa v. Solares, 176 A.D.3d 697, 111 N.Y.S.3d 359 ; Matter of Felty v. Felty, 108 A.D.3d 705, 969 N.Y.S.2d 557 ). "[I]nasmuch as custody determinations depend in large part on an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, the Family Court's findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record" ( Land–Wheatley v. Land–Wheatley, 108 A.D.3d 674, 674, 969 N.Y.S.2d 518 ).
Here, the Family Court's determination that the best interests of the children would be served by awarding sole legal and physical custody to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Lett v. Green, 184 A.D.3d 642, 123 N.Y.S.3d 837 ). The court, having the benefit of observing and listening to the witnesses, credited the mother's testimony on the issue of domestic violence perpetrated by the father (see Matter of Khan v. Potdar, 185 A.D.3d 822, 127 N.Y.S.3d 531 ). Moreover, there was sufficient evidence supporting the court's conclusion that the mother was willing and able to foster a positive relationship between the children and the father and that the father was not similarly willing to foster a positive relationship between the children and the mother (see Matter of Ahmad v. Rani, 185 A.D.3d 581, 124 N.Y.S.3d 834 ).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., BARROS, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.