Craig v. Williams-Craig

61 A.D.3d 712, 876 N.Y.S.2d 650
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 14, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 712 (Craig v. Williams-Craig) 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
Craig v. Williams-Craig, 61 A.D.3d 712, 876 N.Y.S.2d 650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss J.), entered February 27, 2008, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded the father sole custody of the parties’ child, with visitation to her.

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

The essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). “Factors to be considered in determining those bests interests include the parental guidance provided by the custodial parent, each parent’s ability to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development, each parent’s ability to provide for the child financially, the relative fitness of each parent, and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child’s relationship with the other parent” (Matter of Berrouet v Greaves, 35 AD3d 460, 461 [2006]). Since the Supreme Court’s determination is largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibility of witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173; Bibas v Bibas, 58 AD3d 586 [2009]), its custody determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Walton v Walton, 306 AD2d 491, 491-492 [2003]; Miller v Pipia, 297 AD2d 362, 364 [2002]).

Here, the Supreme Court’s determination is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, including the recommendation of the court-appointed psychiatrist (see Matter of Berrouet v Greaves, 35 AD3d at 460-462).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Miller, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Cucciniello v. D'Amato
2020 NY Slip Op 06781 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Ravello v. Ravello
2020 NY Slip Op 05904 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Batista v. Falcon
2017 NY Slip Op 1546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Moses v. Williams
138 A.D.3d 861 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of McQueen v. Legette
125 A.D.3d 863 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Ivory B. v. Shameccka D. B.
121 A.D.3d 674 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Felty v. Felty
108 A.D.3d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Stramezzi v. Scozzari
106 A.D.3d 748 (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)
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)
61 A.D.3d 712, 876 N.Y.S.2d 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craig-v-williams-craig-nyappdiv-2009.