Gilmartin v. Abbas

60 A.D.3d 1058, 877 N.Y.S.2d 347
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 31, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 60 A.D.3d 1058 (Gilmartin v. Abbas) 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
Gilmartin v. Abbas, 60 A.D.3d 1058, 877 N.Y.S.2d 347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearl, J.), dated January 23, 2008, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition to modify a prior custody order of the same court dated July 2, 2004, awarding her sole custody of the parties’ child, and awarded him sole custody of the subject child.

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

Custody determinations depend to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties (see Matter of Brian S. v Stephanie P., 34 AD3d 685, 686 [2006]; Matter of James v Hickey, 6 AD3d 536, 537 [2004]). A determination of custody should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]). A court, in considering questions of child custody, must determine what is in the best interests of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]).

The hearing court may order a change in custody if the totality of the circumstances warrants a modification in the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of Brian S. v Stephanie P., 34 AD3d 685, 686 [2006]). The Family Court’s determination that the best interests of the child would be served by a change of custody to the father is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of Timosa v Chase, 21 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2005]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Covello and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Schultheis v. Schultheis
141 A.D.3d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Costigan v. Renner
123 A.D.3d 825 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Stewart v. Moseley
102 A.D.3d 973 (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)
Ruggiero v. Noe
93 A.D.3d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Ross v. Ross
86 A.D.3d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Bourne v. Bristow
66 A.D.2d 621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Smalls v. Payne
64 A.D.3d 783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Olivera v. Martinez
64 A.D.3d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 A.D.3d 1058, 877 N.Y.S.2d 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilmartin-v-abbas-nyappdiv-2009.