Gasby v. Chung

88 A.D.3d 709, 930 N.Y.2d 471
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 4, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 709 (Gasby v. Chung) 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
Gasby v. Chung, 88 A.D.3d 709, 930 N.Y.2d 471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

“The 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” (Matter of Quinones v Gonzalez, 79 AD3d 893, 894 [2010]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). 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 should not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173; Matter of Kreischer v Perry, 83 AD3d 841 [2011]; Matter of Quinones v Gonzalez, 79 AD3d at 894).

Here, the Family Court’s determination that the child’s best [710]*710interests would be served by awarding sole custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Peoples v Bideau, 85 AD3d 798 [2011]; Pierre-Paul v Boursiquot, 74 AD3d 935, 936 [2010]; Matter of Ramirez v Velez, 78 AD3d 1062 [2010]; Matter of Paul v Sawyer, 78 AD3d 710, 711 [2010]). Based on the parents’ testimony and credibility, the Family Court found, inter alia, that the father was more willing than the mother to assure meaningful contact between the child and the other parent (see Matter of Kreischer v Perry, 83 AD3d at 842; Matter of Pappas v Kells, 77 AD3d 952, 953-954 [2010]). Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court did not improperly fail to consider her allegations of domestic violence, as the Family Court, in effect, resolved the parents’ conflicting testimony in favor of the father and, accordingly, the mother’s allegations were not supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1]; Pierre-Paul v Boursiquot, 74 AD3d at 936; Matter of Khaykin v Kanayeva, 47 AD3d 817, 817-818 [2008]). Rivera, J.E, Balkin, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lavery v. O'Sullivan
2022 NY Slip Op 03378 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Agulnick v. Agulnick
2020 NY Slip Op 07333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Mahoney v. Ramos-Ortiz
2020 NY Slip Op 3108 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
R.K. v. R.G.
2019 NY Slip Op 1207 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Leon v. Quinones
2018 NY Slip Op 6742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Cravo v. Diegel
2018 NY Slip Op 5447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Wittingham v. Payne
2018 NY Slip Op 2637 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Huaringa v. Camargo
138 A.D.3d 993 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Bonet v. Bonet
121 A.D.3d 978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Gooler v. Gooler
107 A.D.3d 712 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Frankiv v. Kalitka
105 A.D.3d 1045 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Rowe v. Services-Queens
95 A.D.3d 1220 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 A.D.3d 709, 930 N.Y.2d 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gasby-v-chung-nyappdiv-2011.