Opinion
2013-05390 (Docket No. V-3552-12)
03-25-2015
In the Matter of Eryberto TEJADA, appellant, v. Shirley TEJADA, respondent.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Lance K. Dandridge, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Lance K. Dandridge, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
Opinion Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Nicholette M. Pach, J.H.O.), dated March 27, 2013. The order, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the subject child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“When determining custody cases, the primary concern is the best interests of the child” (McDonald v. McDonald,
122 A.D.3d 911, 998 N.Y.S.2d 389 ; see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of Islam v. Lee, 115 A.D.3d 952, 953, 982 N.Y.S.2d 772 ). “The factors to be considered in determining the custody arrangement that is in the child's best interests include the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child, the ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child, the relative fitness of the respective parents, and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent” (McDonald v. McDonald, 122 A.D.3d at 911–912, 998 N.Y.S.2d 389 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 171–173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of Islam v. Lee, 115 A.D.3d at 953, 982 N.Y.S.2d 772 ). The child's expressed preference is an additional factor to be considered, taking into account the child's age, maturity, and any potential influence that may have been exerted on him or her (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Bressler v. Bressler, 122 A.D.3d 659, 996 N.Y.S.2d 160 ). Additionally, if domestic violence is alleged, and such allegations are proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the court must consider the effect of such violence upon the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1] ; see Bressler v. Bressler, 122 A.D.3d at 660, 996 N.Y.S.2d 160 ; Matter of Felty v. Felty, 108 A.D.3d 705, 707, 969 N.Y.S.2d 557 ). “The ‘existence or absence of any one factor cannot be determinative on appellate review since the court is to consider the totality of the circumstances' ” (Matter of McLennan v. Gordon, 122 A.D.3d 742, 742, 996 N.Y.S.2d 339, quoting Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ).
“As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court's determination following a complete evidentiary hearing should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Jurado v. Jurado, 119 A.D.3d 796, 989 N.Y.S.2d 316 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of McLennan v. Gordon, 122 A.D.3d at 742, 996 N.Y.S.2d 339 ; Matter of Islam v. Lee, 115 A.D.3d at 953, 982 N.Y.S.2d 772 ).
Here, the Family Court, after having had the opportunity to evaluate the testimony, interview the child in camera, and consider the position of the attorney for the child, determined that an award of sole custody to the father was in the best interests of the child. That determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and will not be disturbed on appeal (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Bressler v. Bressler, 122 A.D.3d at 660, 996 N.Y.S.2d 160 ).