Ricardo S. v. Carron C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ricardo S. v. Carron C.

91 A.D.3d 556, 937 N.Y.2d 54

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 556 (Ricardo S. v. Carron C.) 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

Ricardo S. v. Carron C., 91 A.D.3d 556, 937 N.Y.2d 54 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

A sound and substantial basis in the record supports the determination that it is in the child’s best interests to remain in the custody of his father (see Lubit v Lubit, 65 AD3d 954, 955 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 716 [2010], cert denied 560 US —, 130 S Ct 3362 [2010]). The court reached this determination after a full evidentiary hearing at which it had the opportunity to hear the testimony of the witnesses, including both parents, and interview the child in camera (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-172 [1982]; Matter of Nelissa O. v Danny C., 70 AD3d 572 [2010]).

The record indicates that the child has thrived in his father’s custody, is healthy, receives regular medical care, continues to be a successful participant in his school’s gifted and talented program, and has extensive and important bonds with his paternal relatives in New York. Moreover, although the child loves both of his parents and refuses to be forced to choose between them, the court did conclude, based upon its in camera interview, that the child would prefer to remain in New York, with extensive visitation with his mother in Jamaica. While not dispositive, the child’s preference is significant, and the court’s order supports what it found to be the child’s preferred living arrangement (see e.g. Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173).

We have considered the mother’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Román, JJ.

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

A sound and substantial basis in the record supports the determination that it is in the child’s best interests to remain in the custody of his father (see Lubit v Lubit, 65 AD3d 954, 955 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 716 [2010], cert denied 560 US —, 130 S Ct 3362 [2010]). The court reached this determination after a full evidentiary hearing at which it had the opportunity to hear the testimony of the witnesses, including both parents, and interview the child in camera (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-172 [1982]; Matter of Nelissa O. v Danny C., 70 AD3d 572 [2010]).

The record indicates that the child has thrived in his father’s custody, is healthy, receives regular medical care, continues to be a successful participant in his school’s gifted and talented program, and has extensive and important bonds with his paternal relatives in New York. Moreover, although the child loves both of his parents and refuses to be forced to choose between them, the court did conclude, based upon its in camera interview, that the child would prefer to remain in New York, with extensive visitation with his mother in Jamaica. While not dispositive, the child’s preference is significant, and the court’s order supports what it found to be the child’s preferred living arrangement (see e.g. Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173).

We have considered the mother’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 556, 937 N.Y.2d 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricardo-s-v-carron-c-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack