Quinones v. Quinones
| Citation | 32 N.Y.S.3d 607,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04061,139 A.D.3d 1072 |
| Decision Date | 25 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | 2015-04684, Docket No. V-4784-12, V-4889-12. |
| Parties | In the Matter of Roberto J. QUINONES, respondent, v. Claudineth QUINONES, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Barbara J. Caravello, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Anne–Marie Jolly, J.), dated May 1, 2015. The order, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the subject child, with visitation to the mother and, in effect, denied the mother's petition for custody of the child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The mother and the father were married in February 2002 and have one child, born in August 2009. In February 2012, shortly after the mother moved out of the marital home, the father filed a petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 seeking custody of the child. He also filed a family offense petition against the mother on behalf of the child, alleging that she presented a physical threat to the child. The Family Court issued a temporary order of protection against the mother prohibiting her from having unsupervised contact with the child. The mother filed a petition for custody. In April 2012, upon the father's consent, the court granted the mother unsupervised visitation with the child. In July 2012, the father withdrew the family offense petition. After a hearing, the court granted the father's custody petition and awarded him sole legal and physical custody of the child, with visitation to the mother. The court also, in effect, denied the mother's custody petition. The mother appeals.
In making an initial custody or visitation determination, the court must consider what arrangement is in the best interests of the child under the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of Saravia v. Godzieba, 120 A.D.3d 821, 821, 991 N.Y.S.2d 476 ; Matter of Jules v. Corriette, 76 A.D.3d 1016, 1017, 908 N.Y.S.2d 89 ). “Factors to be considered include the quality of the home environment and parental guidance, the ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development, and the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child” (Matter of Andrews v. Mouzon, 80 A.D.3d 761, 762, 915 N.Y.S.2d 604 ). The relative fitness of each parent, as well as the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent also should be considered (see Matter of Ivory B. v. Shameccka D.B., 121 A.D.3d 674, 674–675, 993 N.Y.S.2d 173 ). “[I]nasmuch as custody determinations depend in large part on an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, the hearing court's findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Pierre–Paul v. Boursiquot, 74 A.D.3d 935, 936, 903 N.Y.S.2d 94 ; see Matter of Gribeluk v. Gribeluk, 120 A.D.3d 579, 579, 991 N.Y.S.2d 117 ).
Here, the Family Court, after hearing the testimony of the parties, the child's pediatrician, and the child's babysitter, determined that the child's best interests would be served by awarding sole custody to the father and visitation to the mother (see Matter of Andrews v. Mouzon, 80 A.D.3d at 761, 915 N.Y.S.2d 604 ). The evidence at the hearing established that both parents loved the child, maintained suitable homes, and could adequately care for the child (see Matter of Saravia v. Godzieba, 120 A.D.3d at 822, 991 N.Y.S.2d 476 ). While the father had, in the past, behaved in a manner that interfered with the mother's relationship with the child, that issue was resolved and did not preclude an award of custody to the father (see Matter of Lombardi v. Valenti, 120 A.D.3d 817, 819, 991 N.Y.S.2d 457 ; Matter of Ross v. Ross, 96 A.D.3d 856, 858, 946 N.Y.S.2d 598 ). The testimony reflected that the father, with whom the child had always lived and who had served as the child's primary caregiver for more than two years, could offer the child greater stability, and was better equipped to provide for the child's needs. In addition, the court found that the father would foster the child's relationship with the mother (see Matter of Saravia v. Godzieba, 120...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.D. v. A.D.
...far more capable of fostering a relationship between the subject child and the non-custodial parent. See Matter of Quinones v. Quinones, 139 A.D.3d 1072, 32 N.Y.S.3d 607 (2d Dept.2016) ; See also, Matter of Wilson v. Bryant, 143 A.D.3d 905, 41 N.Y.S.3d 503 (2d Dept.2016). After consideratio......
-
Heather NN. v. Vinnette OO.
...wishes. That request was not, however, preserved for appellate review by an application at trial (see Matter of Quinones v. Quinones , 139 A.D.3d 1072, 1074, 32 N.Y.S.3d 607 [2016] ). If the contention had been properly presented, we would not have found that modification was warranted; aga......
-
Admin. for Children's Servs. v. Kenyetta M. (In re Adonnis M.)
...... on July 31, 2018, was not raised as an issue before that court, and is therefore unpreserved for appellate review ( see Matter of Quinones v. Quinones, 139 A.D.3d 1072, 1074, 32 N.Y.S.3d 607 ). Contrary to the foster mother's further contention, she was not denied her own right to ......
-
Ambrose v. Ambrose
...basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see Cole v. Cole, 172 A.D.3d 680, 681, 97 N.Y.S.3d 513 ; Matter of Quinones v. Quinones, 139 A.D.3d 1072, 1074, 32 N.Y.S.3d 607 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that the court appropriately considered all relev......