Neuman v. Neuman, 2003-11223.
| Citation | 796 N.Y.S.2d 403,19 A.D.3d 383,2005 NY Slip Op 04552 |
| Decision Date | 06 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2003-11223. |
| Parties | SUSAN K. NEUMAN, Appellant, v. MARVIN H. NEUMAN, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff mother and the defendant father were married on March 20, 1988, and are the parents of Mark Neuman, born April 26, 1989, Aliza Neuman, born May 11, 1992, and Teddy Neuman, born January 26, 1998. In August 2000 the father left the marital home pursuant to an order of protection of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated August 9, 2000. The three children remained with the mother, and the parties arranged a visitation schedule whereby the children divided their weekends between both parents. In mid-2001 Mark began to live with the father. In March 2002 the mother and father entered into a written stipulation with the concurrence of the Law Guardian which provided, inter alia, that Mark would remain in the father's residential custody, and Teddy and Aliza would remain in the mother's residential custody, subject to certain visitation rights of the parties.
At a trial that spanned 11 months, the parties and the Law Guardian presented testimony including the report and testimony of the court-appointed forensic psychologist which revealed, as the Supreme Court noted, that "each party has severe limitations which inhibit their ability to parent." After hearing all of the evidence and after conducting an in camera interview with the two older children, the Supreme Court transferred residential custody of Teddy, the youngest child, from the mother to the father, in conformance with the recommendation of the Law Guardian but contrary to the conclusion of the court-appointed forensic examiner.
A court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a transfer of custody is in the best interests of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 70; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 [1982]; Gainey v Gainey, 303 AD2d 628, 629 [2003]; Fanelli v Fanelli, 215 AD2d 718, 719 [1995]; Matter of Coyne v Coyne, 150 AD2d 573, 575 [1989]). An appellate court must accord the hearing court, which observed witnesses and evaluated evidence first hand, great deference and the hearing court's findings should not be lightly disregarded unless such findings lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feliccia v. Spahn
...56 N.Y.2d at 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;Cuccurullo v. Cuccurullo, 21 A.D.3d 983, 984, 801 N.Y.S.2d 360;Neuman v. Neuman, 19 A.D.3d 383, 384, 796 N.Y.S.2d 403). “Since custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parti......
-
In the Matter of Lana Rosen v. Goldhaber
...basis in the record ( see [901 N.Y.S.2d 382] Matter of Rodriguez v. Irizarry, 29 A.D.3d 704, 704, 814 N.Y.S.2d 273; Neuman v. Neuman, 19 A.D.3d 383, 384, 796 N.Y.S.2d 403). Contrary to the mother's contentions, the record supports the Family Court's determination that she failed to demonstr......
-
Pritchard v. Coelho
...Pitt v. Reid, 111 A.D.3d 946, 975 N.Y.S.2d 684 ; Matter of Nikolic v. Ingrassia, 47 A.D.3d 819, 821, 850 N.Y.S.2d 539 ; Neuman v. Neuman, 19 A.D.3d 383, 384, 796 N.Y.S.2d 403 ). We agree with the court's determination to decline to follow the forensic evaluator's recommendation, which was b......
-
Cunningham v. Brutman
...Pitt v. Reid, 111 A.D.3d 946, 975 N.Y.S.2d 684 ; Matter of Nikolic v. Ingrassia, 47 A.D.3d 819, 821, 850 N.Y.S.2d 539 ; Neuman v. Neuman, 19 A.D.3d 383, 796 N.Y.S.2d 403 ). The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in admitting into evidence a document created by the plaintiff......