Matter of Nunez v. Lasso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Nunez v. Lasso

2016 NY Slip Op 7196, 144 A.D.3d 689, 39 N.Y.S.3d 813

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

DecidedNovember 2, 2016

Docket2015-08769

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7196 (Matter of Nunez v. Lasso) 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 Nunez v. Lasso, 2016 NY Slip Op 7196, 144 A.D.3d 689, 39 N.Y.S.3d 813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Denise M. Watson, J.), dated August 26, 2015. The order, after a hearing, awarded the mother and father joint legal custody and awarded the father primary physical custody of the parties’ child.

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

The father and the mother, who were never married, have one child in common. The father filed a petition for custody, and, following a hearing, the Family Court awarded the mother and father joint legal custody, with primary physical custody to the father and visitation to the mother. The mother appeals.

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 (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Julie v Wills, 73 AD3d 777 [2010]). “Factors to be considered in determining the child’s best interests include the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child, the ability of each parent to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child, the relative fitness of the respective parents, and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child’s relationship with the other parent” (Matter of Elliott v Felder, 69 AD3d 623, 623 [2010]). “Since custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded to the trial court’s findings, and such findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Gooler v Gooler, 107 AD3d 712, 712 [2013]).

Here, the Family Court’s determination that the child’s best interests would be served by awarding the mother and father *690 joint legal custody and awarding the father primary physical custody has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and will not be disturbed (see Matter of McPherson v McPherson, 139 AD3d 953 [2016]; Matter of Monasterska v Burns, 121 AD3d 903 [2014]).

Chambers, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Denise M. Watson, J.), dated August 26, 2015. The order, after a hearing, awarded the mother and father joint legal custody and awarded the father primary physical custody of the parties’ child.

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

The father and the mother, who were never married, have one child in common. The father filed a petition for custody, and, following a hearing, the Family Court awarded the mother and father joint legal custody, with primary physical custody to the father and visitation to the mother. The mother appeals.

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 (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Julie v Wills, 73 AD3d 777 [2010]). “Factors to be considered in determining the child’s best interests include the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child, the ability of each parent to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child, the relative fitness of the respective parents, and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child’s relationship with the other parent” (Matter of Elliott v Felder, 69 AD3d 623, 623 [2010]). “Since custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded to the trial court’s findings, and such findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Gooler v Gooler, 107 AD3d 712, 712 [2013]).

Here, the Family Court’s determination that the child’s best interests would be served by awarding the mother and father *690 joint legal custody and awarding the father primary physical custody has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and will not be disturbed (see Matter of McPherson v McPherson, 139 AD3d 953 [2016]; Matter of Monasterska v Burns, 121 AD3d 903 [2014]).

Chambers, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7196, 144 A.D.3d 689, 39 N.Y.S.3d 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-nunez-v-lasso-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack