DiPaolo v. DiPaolo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiPaolo v. DiPaolo

223 A.D.2d 589, 637 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 209

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 16, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 589 (DiPaolo v. DiPaolo) 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

DiPaolo v. DiPaolo, 223 A.D.2d 589, 637 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a custody proceeding, [590]*590the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated January 26, 1994, as granted custody of the infant children to the father.

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

We find no basis for disturbing the trial court’s award of custody of the parties’ two children to the father. It is well settled that in adjudicating custody and visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered is the best interest of the children (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167). In determining the best interest of the children, the courts must view the "totality of [the] circumstances” (Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 96). The court’s determination depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the assessments of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents. In matters of this nature, "the findings of the nisi prius court must be accorded the greatest respect” (Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777; Eschbach v Eschbach, supra, at 173).

We find that the Family Court weighed the appropriate factors. The record clearly supports the court’s conclusion that the father, although not ideal, would be better able to provide for the emotional and intellectual needs of the children, and, thus, transfer of custody was in the children’s best interest (see, Kuncman v Kuncman, 188 AD2d 517). We further find that the Family Court acted properly in not deferring to the preferences of three-year-old and one-year-old children, as they are both of tender age and incompetent to intelligently weigh the factors necessary to make a wise choice regarding custody (see, Smith v Finger, 187 AD2d 711). Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a custody proceeding, [590]*590the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated January 26, 1994, as granted custody of the infant children to the father.

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

We find no basis for disturbing the trial court’s award of custody of the parties’ two children to the father. It is well settled that in adjudicating custody and visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered is the best interest of the children (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167). In determining the best interest of the children, the courts must view the "totality of [the] circumstances” (Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 96). The court’s determination depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the assessments of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents. In matters of this nature, "the findings of the nisi prius court must be accorded the greatest respect” (Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777; Eschbach v Eschbach, supra, at 173).

We find that the Family Court weighed the appropriate factors. The record clearly supports the court’s conclusion that the father, although not ideal, would be better able to provide for the emotional and intellectual needs of the children, and, thus, transfer of custody was in the children’s best interest (see, Kuncman v Kuncman, 188 AD2d 517). We further find that the Family Court acted properly in not deferring to the preferences of three-year-old and one-year-old children, as they are both of tender age and incompetent to intelligently weigh the factors necessary to make a wise choice regarding custody (see, Smith v Finger, 187 AD2d 711). Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 589, 637 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dipaolo-v-dipaolo-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack