Vega v. Afanador

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vega v. Afanador

41 A.D.3d 609, 836 N.Y.S.2d 436

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

DecidedJune 12, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 609 (Vega v. Afanador) 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

Vega v. Afanador, 41 A.D.3d 609, 836 N.Y.S.2d 436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In two related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Goldstein, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated March 24, 2006, which, after a hearing, granted the mother’s petition for sole custody of the subject child and denied his cross petition for sole custody.

[610]*610Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The essential consideration in a custody determination is the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982]). “Since the Family Court’s custody determination is largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Plaza v Plaza, 305 AD2d 607 [2003]; see Matter of Tavarez v Musse, 31 AD3d 458 [2006]; Matter of Perez v Montanez, 31 AD3d 565 [2006]; Maloney v Maloney, 208 AD2d 603 [1994]). Here, the Family Court’s determination to award custody to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed. Spolzino, J.P., Fisher, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In two related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Goldstein, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated March 24, 2006, which, after a hearing, granted the mother’s petition for sole custody of the subject child and denied his cross petition for sole custody.

[610]*610Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The essential consideration in a custody determination is the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982]). “Since the Family Court’s custody determination is largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Plaza v Plaza, 305 AD2d 607 [2003]; see Matter of Tavarez v Musse, 31 AD3d 458 [2006]; Matter of Perez v Montanez, 31 AD3d 565 [2006]; Maloney v Maloney, 208 AD2d 603 [1994]). Here, the Family Court’s determination to award custody to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed. Spolzino, J.P., Fisher, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 609, 836 N.Y.S.2d 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vega-v-afanador-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack