Cunningham v. Brutman
| Decision Date | 10 May 2017 |
| Citation | 55 N.Y.S.3d 269,150 A.D.3d 815 |
| Parties | Jerome F. CUNNINGHAM, Jr., respondent, v. Jeanne BRUTMAN, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
150 A.D.3d 815
55 N.Y.S.3d 269
Jerome F. CUNNINGHAM, Jr., respondent,
v.
Jeanne BRUTMAN, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 10, 2017.
Michael Lesher, New City, NY, for appellant.
Hoffman & Behar, LLP (Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, NY [Scott T. Horn ], of counsel), for respondent.
Angella S. Hull, Jamaica, NY, attorney for the child.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, and FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lenora Gerald, J.), dated November 24, 2015. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon a decision of that court dated June 30, 2015, made after a nonjury trial, awarded the plaintiff sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child and failed to impute additional income to the plaintiff.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In this matrimonial action, a nonjury trial was held on the issues of custody of the parties' child and the equitable distribution of assets. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in awarding the plaintiff sole legal and physical custody of the child. In making a custody determination, the primary concern is the best interests of the child. In determining the child's best interests, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances. Factors to be considered include the relative fitness of the parents, the quality of the home environment, the parents' financial status, the parental guidance given to the child, the ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development, and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171–173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of Sahadath v. Andaverde , 145 A.D.3d 731, 43 N.Y.S.3d 421 ; Matter of Tejada v. Tejada, 126 A.D.3d 985, 6 N.Y.S.3d 122 ; Cuccurullo v. Cuccurullo, 21 A.D.3d 983, 801 N.Y.S.2d 360 ). A custody determination depends to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pandis v. Lapas
...720, 721, 99 N.Y.S.3d 446 ; see Eschbach v. Eschbach , 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Cunningham v. Brutman , 150 A.D.3d 815, 815, 55 N.Y.S.3d 269 ). "In determining an initial petition for child custody, the totality of the circumstances, includes, but is not limit......
-
Nieves v. Nieves, 2018–09892
...recommendation of a forensic evaluator is but one factor to be considered in making a custody determination (see Cunningham v. Brutman, 150 A.D.3d 815, 816, 55 N.Y.S.3d 269 ; Matter of Kozlowski v. Mangialino, 36 A.D.3d 916, 917, 830 N.Y.S.2d 557 ). It is not determinative and does not usur......
-
Proceeding Under Article 6 of Family Court Act, Marvin F. v. Jaran H.
...and would foster a positive relationship between the Child and the other parent, requires a more in-depth analysis (see Cunningham v Brutman, 150 A.D.3d at 815). Based on Court's observation of the witnesses' demeanor and behavior in court, it was the Father who credibly testified that he h......
-
Greim v. Greim
...56 N.Y.2d 167, 173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Hogan v. Hogan, 159 A.D.3d 679, 681, 71 N.Y.S.3d 601 ; Cunningham v. Brutman, 150 A.D.3d 815, 55 N.Y.S.3d 269 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's determinations that there had been a change in circumstances, ......