Coakley v. Goins

240 A.D.2d 573, 659 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6593
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 16, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 573 (Coakley v. Goins) 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
Coakley v. Goins, 240 A.D.2d 573, 659 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Schindler, J.), dated July 12, 1995, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for custody of the parties’ daughter.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In 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; Matter of Schmidt v Schmidt, 234 AD2d 465), which requires an evaluation of the "totality of the circumstances” (Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95). Since the trial 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 (see, Schmidt v Schmidt, supra; Kuncman v Kuncman, 188 AD2d 517).

Upon our review of the record, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s award of custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record. Although the court-appointed psychologist took note of the strong bond between the mother and child, she voiced concern over certain lapses in the mother’s judgment. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that the child has thrived in the care of the father and members of [574]*574his family since he obtained temporary custody in 1994, and both the psychologist and law guardian recommended that the father retain custody. Under these circumstances, we decline to disturb the Family Court’s custody award. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Chaloeicheep v. Hanrahan
2021 NY Slip Op 01765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Scully v. Lent
2017 NY Slip Op 5738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Guiracocha v. Amaro
122 A.D.3d 632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Ronald S. v. Lucille Diamond S.
45 A.D.3d 295 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
West v. Turner
38 A.D.3d 673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Magwood v. Martinez
35 A.D.3d 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Galanos v. Galanos
28 A.D.3d 554 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Bowe v. Robinson
23 A.D.3d 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Faunteleroy v. Mercado
5 A.D.3d 482 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Scalisi v. Scalisi
2 A.D.3d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re St. Christopher-Ottillie
307 A.D.2d 360 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Plaza v. Plaza
305 A.D.2d 607 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Dobbins v. Vartabedian
304 A.D.2d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Gainey v. Gainey
303 A.D.2d 628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Gorelik v. Gorelik
303 A.D.2d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Sienkwicz v. Sienkwicz
298 A.D.2d 396 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Morales v. Morales
295 A.D.2d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Barnes v. Barnes
293 A.D.2d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Miller-Presutti v. Presutti
257 A.D.2d 562 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 A.D.2d 573, 659 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coakley-v-goins-nyappdiv-1997.