Matter of Falabella v. Belits

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Falabella v. Belits

129 A.D.3d 1077, 10 N.Y.S.3d 875

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

DecidedJune 24, 2015

Docket2014-00579

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 A.D.3d 1077 (Matter of Falabella v. Belits) 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 Falabella v. Belits, 129 A.D.3d 1077, 10 N.Y.S.3d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Linda M. Boggio, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated November 21, 2013. The order, after a hearing, granted the mother’s petition for sole custody of the subject child, and denied the father’s petition for sole custody of the child.

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

“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 Gooler v Gooler, 107 AD3d 712, 712 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). Custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, and such assessments by the Family Court should not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Picado v Doan, 90 AD3d 932 [2011]; Matter of Manfredo v Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498 [2008]).

Here, the Family Court’s determination that the best interests of the subject child would be served by awarding sole custody to the mother is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Aaron W. v Shannon W., 96 AD3d 960, 961 [2012]; Matter of Laura A.K. v Timothy M., 204 AD2d 325, 326 [1994]).

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Linda M. Boggio, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated November 21, 2013. The order, after a hearing, granted the mother’s petition for sole custody of the subject child, and denied the father’s petition for sole custody of the child.

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

“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 Gooler v Gooler, 107 AD3d 712, 712 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). Custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, and such assessments by the Family Court should not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Picado v Doan, 90 AD3d 932 [2011]; Matter of Manfredo v Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498 [2008]).

Here, the Family Court’s determination that the best interests of the subject child would be served by awarding sole custody to the mother is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Aaron W. v Shannon W., 96 AD3d 960, 961 [2012]; Matter of Laura A.K. v Timothy M., 204 AD2d 325, 326 [1994]).

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 1077, 10 N.Y.S.3d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-falabella-v-belits-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack