Matter of Elissa A. v. Samuel B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Elissa A. v. Samuel B.

123 A.D.3d 638, 999 N.Y.S.2d 76

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2014

Docket13869

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 638 (Matter of Elissa A. v. Samuel B.) 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

Matter of Elissa A. v. Samuel B., 123 A.D.3d 638, 999 N.Y.S.2d 76 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered on or about November 25, 2013, which, after a hearing, awarded sole legal and physical custody of the subject child to respondent father, with visitation to petitioner mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s determination that the child’s best interests will *639 be served by awarding sole legal and physical custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). As the court’s evaluation turned “almost entirely on assessments of the credibility of the witnesses and particularly on the assessment of the character and temperament of the parent,” its findings “must be accorded the greatest respect” (Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777 [1975]).

The evidence shows that the mother has not behaved with the child’s best interests in mind, as she has impeded the father’s visitation with the child (see Matter of Alfredo J.T. v Jodi D., 120 AD3d 1138, 1139 [1st Dept 2014]). Further, the mother has instigated arguments and otherwise acted out aggressively, sometimes with violence, in front of the child, the father, and others (see Matter of Kenneth H. v Fay F., 113 AD3d 542, 543 [1st Dept 2014]). Moreover, the evidence shows that the father is more stable and has taken good care of the child.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered on or about November 25, 2013, which, after a hearing, awarded sole legal and physical custody of the subject child to respondent father, with visitation to petitioner mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s determination that the child’s best interests will *639 be served by awarding sole legal and physical custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). As the court’s evaluation turned “almost entirely on assessments of the credibility of the witnesses and particularly on the assessment of the character and temperament of the parent,” its findings “must be accorded the greatest respect” (Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777 [1975]).

The evidence shows that the mother has not behaved with the child’s best interests in mind, as she has impeded the father’s visitation with the child (see Matter of Alfredo J.T. v Jodi D., 120 AD3d 1138, 1139 [1st Dept 2014]). Further, the mother has instigated arguments and otherwise acted out aggressively, sometimes with violence, in front of the child, the father, and others (see Matter of Kenneth H. v Fay F., 113 AD3d 542, 543 [1st Dept 2014]). Moreover, the evidence shows that the father is more stable and has taken good care of the child.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 638, 999 N.Y.S.2d 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-elissa-a-v-samuel-b-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack