Angel M. v. Nereida M.

• Decision Date: 23 February 2012
• Citation: 92 A.D.3d 583,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01357,938 N.Y.S.2d 556
• Parties: In re ANGEL M., Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEREIDA M., Respondent–Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01357
92 A.D.3d 583
938 N.Y.S.2d 556

In re ANGEL M., Petitioner–Appellant,
v.
NEREIDA M., Respondent–Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Feb. 23, 2012.

[938 N.Y.S.2d 557]

Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for appellant.

Yisroel Schulman, New York Legal Assistant Group, New York, (Christina Brandt–Young of counsel), for respondent.

Karen P. Simmons, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Sena Kim–Reuter of counsel), attorney for the child.MAZZARELLI, J.P., CATTERSON, RENWICK, ABDUS–SALAAM, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.

[92 A.D.3d 583] Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Diane Kiesel, J.), entered on or about September 17, 2009, which, after a hearing, granted a final order of custody to respondent mother, with visitation to petitioner father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court's determination that it was in the best interests of the child to grant custody to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see [92 A.D.3d 584] Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ). The record shows that the father attempted and intended to thwart any relationship between the mother and the child, while the mother was willing to ensure that the father had frequent contact with the child; the mother served as the child's primary caregiver before the father gained de facto custody by refusing to return the child after a weekend visit; the father failed to attend to the child's educational needs and was not involved in the child's upbringing; and the father had abused the mother, sometimes in the presence of the child ( see Nimkoff v. Nimkoff, 74 A.D.3d 408, 409, 902 N.Y.S.2d 65 [2010]; Matter of Shayna R., 57 A.D.3d 262, 263, 869 N.Y.S.2d 46 [2008] ). There is no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations, which are entitled to deference ( Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260).

We have considered the father's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.