Irbauch v. Irbauch

226 A.D.2d 379, 640 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3338
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 1, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 379 (Irbauch v. Irbauch) 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
Irbauch v. Irbauch, 226 A.D.2d 379, 640 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Martinez-Perez, J.), dated December 6, 1993, which, after a hearing, awarded custody of the parties’ children to the father.

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

Custody matters are within the sound discretion of the Fam[380]*380ily Court, and its findings should be accorded great deference on appeal since that court was in the best position to evaluate the testimony, character, and sincerity of the parties (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174; Matter of Takeo Kaji v Li Hwa Chen, 224 AD2d 423; Carlin v Carlin, 217 AD2d 679; Klat v Klat, 176 AD2d 922, 923; cf., Matter of Salvati v Salvati, 221 AD2d 541). Thus, the Family Court’s custody determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Matter of Takeo Kaji v Li Hwa Chen, supra; Igbal v Igbal, 214 AD2d 702; Matter of Guillermo v New York City Commr. of Social Servs., 210 AD2d 416; Klat v Klat, supra, at 923).

We find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s custody determination in this case. The record supports the Family Court’s finding that it is in the best interests of the children for their father to have custody of them (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, supra, at 171; Matter of Takeo Kaji v Li Hwa Chen, supra; Matter of Gago v Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565, 566; see also, Matter of Salvati v Salvati, supra). Balletta, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ellis v. Ellis
233 A.D.2d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 A.D.2d 379, 640 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irbauch-v-irbauch-nyappdiv-1996.