Bonilla v. Amaya

58 A.D.3d 728, 872 N.Y.S.2d 465
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 20, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 728 (Bonilla v. Amaya) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bonilla v. Amaya, 58 A.D.3d 728, 872 N.Y.S.2d 465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Phillips, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated August 28, 2006, as, after a hearing, denied his petition for sole custody of the parties’ child and granted the mother’s petition for sole custody of the subject child and permission to relocate with the child to North Carolina.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

[729]*729In adjudicating custody and visitation rights, the most important factor for the court to consider is the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 174 [1982]; Allain v Allain, 35 AD3d 513 [2006]). “Since the Family Court’s custody determination is largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Plaza v Plaza, 305 AD2d 607, 607 [2003]; see Matter of Brass v Otero, 40 AD3d 752 [2007]). Upon weighing the appropriate factors here, the Family Court determined that the best interests of the child would be served by awarding the mother custody. There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for this determination.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, EJ., Spolzino, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Jaelin L. (Kimrenee C.)
126 A.D.3d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Land-Wheatley v. Land-Wheatley
108 A.D.3d 674 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Maraj v. Gordon
102 A.D.3d 698 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Blakeney v. Blakeney
99 A.D.3d 898 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Milius v. Costello
84 A.D.3d 810 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Reyes v. Polanco
83 A.D.3d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Quinones v. Gonzalez
79 A.D.3d 893 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Haggerty v. Haggerty
78 A.D.3d 998 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Otero v. Nieves
77 A.D.3d 756 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Bourne v. Bristow
66 A.D.2d 621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 A.D.3d 728, 872 N.Y.S.2d 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonilla-v-amaya-nyappdiv-2009.