Rudolph v. Armstead

61 A.D.3d 979, 876 N.Y.S.2d 906
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 28, 2009·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“Custody determinations depend to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties. Where, as here, a hearing court has conducted a complete evidentiary hearing, its finding must be accorded great weight, and its award of custody will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Francis v Cox, 57 AD3d 776, 776-777 [2008]; Matter of Manfredo v Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498, 499-500 [2008]). Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court had a sound and substantial basis in the record to support its determination that awarding him sole legal custody of the subject child was not in the child’s best interest.

The mother’s cross appeal must be dismissed as academic because the challenged makeup visits were scheduled to take place in 2008. Fisher, J.E, Miller, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

Rudolph v. Armstead, 61 A.D.3d 979, 876 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

61 A.D.3d 979 (Rudolph v. Armstead) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Maraj v. Gordon
102 A.D.3d 698 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Blakeney v. Blakeney
99 A.D.3d 898 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Sajid v. Berrios-Sajid
73 A.D.3d 1186 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Bourne v. Bristow
66 A.D.2d 621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)