SMITH, RICARDO L. v. INCE, TEEOHMBAYE S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

SMITH, RICARDO L. v. INCE, TEEOHMBAYE S.

91 A.D.3d 1323, 937 N.Y.2d 654

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2012

DocketCAF 11-00591

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.3d 1323 (SMITH, RICARDO L. v. INCE, TEEOHMBAYE S.) 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

SMITH, RICARDO L. v. INCE, TEEOHMBAYE S., 91 A.D.3d 1323, 937 N.Y.2d 654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that granted sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the parties’ child to petitioner father, with visitation to the mother. We affirm. Following a hearing, Family Court determined that the father has a strong bond with the child and is better suited to provide a stable home to the child (see generally Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211-212 [1992]). The court also determined that neither the mother nor the maternal grandmother was a credible witness and that, in the event that it awarded custody to the mother, she would continue to under *1324 mine the father’s relationship with the child. “[T]he court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight, and the court was entitled to credit the testimony of the father over that of the mother” and the maternal grandmother (Matter of Kobel v Holiday, 78 AD3d 1660 [2010]; see Matter of Danielle S. v Larry R.S., 41 AD3d 1188 [2007]). Contrary to the contention of the mother, we conclude that there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court’s determination that an award of sole custody to the father is in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Deborah E.C. v Shawn K., 63 AD3d 1724, 1725 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 710 [2009]; Matter of Jeremy J.A. v Carley A., 48 AD3d 1035 [2008]; Matter of Angel M.S. v Thomas J.S., 41 AD3d 1227 [2007]). Present— Smith, J.E, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Gorski, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that granted sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the parties’ child to petitioner father, with visitation to the mother. We affirm. Following a hearing, Family Court determined that the father has a strong bond with the child and is better suited to provide a stable home to the child (see generally Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211-212 [1992]). The court also determined that neither the mother nor the maternal grandmother was a credible witness and that, in the event that it awarded custody to the mother, she would continue to under *1324 mine the father’s relationship with the child. “[T]he court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight, and the court was entitled to credit the testimony of the father over that of the mother” and the maternal grandmother (Matter of Kobel v Holiday, 78 AD3d 1660 [2010]; see Matter of Danielle S. v Larry R.S., 41 AD3d 1188 [2007]). Contrary to the contention of the mother, we conclude that there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court’s determination that an award of sole custody to the father is in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Deborah E.C. v Shawn K., 63 AD3d 1724, 1725 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 710 [2009]; Matter of Jeremy J.A. v Carley A., 48 AD3d 1035 [2008]; Matter of Angel M.S. v Thomas J.S., 41 AD3d 1227 [2007]). Present— Smith, J.E, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 1323, 937 N.Y.2d 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-ricardo-l-v-ince-teeohmbaye-s-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack