Maloney v. Maloney
| Decision Date | 11 October 1994 |
| Citation | 208 A.D.2d 603,617 N.Y.S.2d 190 |
| Parties | Susan MALONEY, Appellant, v. James J. MALONEY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lehrer & Pernick, Melville (Susan Goldenkranz Pernick, of counsel), for appellant.
Tabat & Cohen, West Islip (Robert A. Cohen, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and SULLIVAN, ALTMAN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), entered April 1, 1993, as granted custody of the infant children to the defendant and limited her visitation rights.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We find no basis for disturbing the trial court's award of custody of the parties' three children to the defendant father. It is well settled that in adjudicating custody and visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the children (see, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 447 N.Y.S.2d 893, 432 N.E.2d 765). Moreover, the court's determination depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the assessments of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents. Therefore, the findings of the trial court must be treated with great respect, unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Matter of Carl J.B. v. Dorothy T., 186 A.D.2d 736, 589 N.Y.S.2d 53; see also, Klat v. Klat, 176 A.D.2d 922, 923, 575 N.Y.S.2d 536; Leistner v. Leistner, 137 A.D.2d 499, 524 N.Y.S.2d 243).
In the present case, the record indicates that the father provided the children with a well-rounded and stable home environment during his visitation periods, which included stimulating activities outside of the home. The mother, however, failed to promote, to the same degree, the children's intellectual, physical and social development, although she had primary custody. Moreover, the mother persistently interfered with the father's visitation rights, causing disruption to the children's weekend routines, often causing them to miss special events which had been planned well in advance and which the children eagerly anticipated. Interference with the relationship between a child and a noncustodial parent by the custodial parent is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Young
... ... with the best interests of the child as to per se raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent" (Maloney v. Maloney, 208 ... Page 959 ... A.D.2d 603, 603-604, 617 N.Y.S.2d 190). Such interference with the relationship between a child and a ... ...
-
J.F. v. L.F.
...child as to per se raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent' (Maloney v. Maloney, 208 A.D.2d 603, 603-604, 617 N.Y.S.2d 190). Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114, 115, 628 N.Y.S.2d 957. See, also, Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 A.D.2d 380, 384-5, 402 ......
-
Fulmer v. Buxenbaum
...v. Simonetti, 91 A.D.3d 645, 646, 935 N.Y.S.2d 904;Matter of Pena v. Pena, 68 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 891 N.Y.S.2d 438;Maloney v. Maloney, 208 A.D.2d 603, 604, 617 N.Y.S.2d 190). Moreover, the mother was awarded liberal unsupervised visitation that afforded her a meaningful opportunity to mainta......
-
Chimienti v. Perperis
...of the witnesses and the parties (see e.g. Matter of Quinn v. Heffler, 102 A.D.3d 876, 876, 958 N.Y.S.2d 473 ; Maloney v. Maloney, 208 A.D.2d 603, 603, 617 N.Y.S.2d 190 ). Further, we find no basis to disturb the court's finding that it would be detrimental to the children's best interests ......