Opinion
2012-01-31
In the Matter of Ricardo L. SMITH, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Teeohmbaye S. INCE, Respondent–Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Salvatore Pavone, R.), entered February 24, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded petitioner sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the subject child.Kelly M. Corbett, Fayetteville, for respondent-appellant. Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Piotr Banasiak of Counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Salvatore Pavone, R.), entered February 24, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded petitioner sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the subject child.Kelly M. Corbett, Fayetteville, for respondent-appellant. Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Piotr Banasiak of Counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Raymond D. Grinnals, Attorney for the Child, Syracuse, for Tyrese I.MEMORANDUM:
Respondent mother appeals from an order that granted sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the parties' child to petitioner father, with visitation to the mother. We affirm. Following a hearing, Family Court determined that the father has a strong bond with the child and is better suited to provide a stable home to the child ( see generally Fox v. Fox, 177 A.D.2d 209, 211–212, 582 N.Y.S.2d 863). The court also determined that neither the mother nor the maternal grandmother was a credible witness and that, in the event that it awarded custody to the mother, she would continue to undermine the father's relationship with the child. “[T]he court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight, and the court was entitled to credit the testimony of the father over that of the mother” and the maternal grandmother ( Matter of Kobel v. Holiday, 78 A.D.3d 1660, 910 N.Y.S.2d 752; see Matter of Danielle S. v. Larry R.S., 41 A.D.3d 1188, 838 N.Y.S.2d 740). Contrary to the contention of the mother, we conclude that there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination that an award of sole custody to the father is in the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Deborah E.C. v. Shawn K., 63 A.D.3d 1724, 1725, 883 N.Y.S.2d 401, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 710, 2009 WL 3428575; Matter of Jeremy J.A. v. Carley A., 48 A.D.3d 1035, 851 N.Y.S.2d 751; Matter of Angel M.S. v. Thomas J.S., 41 A.D.3d 1227, 837 N.Y.S.2d 468).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.