Thomas v. Trice
| Decision Date | 05 April 2011 |
| Citation | 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02889,83 A.D.3d 722,919 N.Y.S.2d 902 |
| Parties | In the Matter of David THOMAS, respondent, v. Sheri TRICE, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
83 A.D.3d 722
919 N.Y.S.2d 902
In the Matter of David THOMAS, respondent,
v.
Sheri TRICE, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
April 5, 2011.
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.
Adewole Agbayewa, Forest Hills, N.Y., for respondent.
Joseph A. Fredericks, North Bellmore, N.Y., attorney for the child.
[83 A.D.3d 722]In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (McGrady, Ct.Atty.Ref.), dated December 10, 2009, as, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the subject child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
[83 A.D.3d 723]Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court did not apply an incorrect legal standard in making its determination. As there was no prior custody order in effect at the time this proceeding commenced, the Family Court treated this as an initial custody determination and was not required to engage in a change-of-circumstances analysis ( see Matter of Quinones v. Gonzalez, 79 A.D.3d 893, 912 N.Y.S.2d 432;Matter of Louis M. v. Administration for Children's Servs., 69 A.D.3d 633, 892 N.Y.S.2d 488;Matter of Jiminez v. Jiminez, 301 A.D.2d 971, 754 N.Y.S.2d 702;see also Matter of Neail v. Deshane, 19 A.D.3d 758, 796 N.Y.S.2d 435).
On the merits, the Family Court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260). Moreover, inasmuch as custody determinations depend in large part on an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, the Family Court's findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Andrews v. Mouzon, 80 A.D.3d 761, 915 N.Y.S.2d 604). The Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served by
[919 N.Y.S.2d 903]
awarding sole custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record.
PRUDENTI, P.J., DILLON, BALKIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re Carmen C.
-
Inabinett v. Kelly, 2013-08222, 2013-08224 (Docket Nos. V-5139-12, V-15334-12)
...a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Guzman v. Pizarro, 102 A.D.3d 964, 958 N.Y.S.2d 491 ; Matter of Thomas v. Trice, 83 A.D.3d 722, 723, 919 N.Y.S.2d 902 ). MASTRO, J.P., DICKERSON, COHEN and LaSALLE, JJ., ...
-
Guzman v. Pizarro
...custody of the subject child ( see Matter of Roberta GG. v. Leon HH., 99 A.D.3d 1057, 1058, 952 N.Y.S.2d 778;Matter of Thomas v. Trice, 83 A.D.3d 722, 723, 919 N.Y.S.2d 902;Matter of Smith v. Smith, 61 A.D.3d 1275, 1276, 878 N.Y.S.2d 814). The parties' informal prior arrangement was but one......
-
In the Matter of Antoinne T. (anonymous).Suffolk County Dep't of Soc. Serv.
...the subject child. After a dispositional hearing, the Family Court determined that the best interests of the child required a disposition [83 A.D.3d 722] suspending judgment and it issued an order entitled “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Disposition–Suspended Judgment” d......