293 A.D.2d 431, *; 739 N.Y.S.2d 626, **;
2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3333, ***
Greg Amari, Appellant, v. Marie Molloy, Respondent.
2000-11348
SUPREME COURT OF
293 A.D.2d 431; 739 N.Y.S.2d 626; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3333
February 25, 2002, Argued
April 1, 2002, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a
judgment dated June 23, 1999, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the
Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated October 20, 2000, which, inter
alia, awarded custody of the parties' infant child to the defendant, and
limited his visitation rights.
COUNSEL: McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams, P.C.,
McCarthy, Fingar, Donovan, Drazen & Smith, LLP,
Warren L. Millman,
JUDGES: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA L.
TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ. O'BRIEN, J.P., LUCIANO, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ.,
concur.
OPINION: [*432] [**627]
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"A custody determination is a matter that rests within the sound
discretion of the trial court and is accorded great deference on appeal as the
trial court had the opportunity to assess the witnesses' demeanor and
credibility" (Kelley-Milone v Milone, 256 AD2d 554; see also Maloney v
Maloney, 208 AD2d 603; Matter of Garvin v Garvin, 176 AD2d 318). [***2] The trial court, upon consideration of all of
the relevant circumstances, must determine what is in the best interests of the
child (see Domestic Relations Law § 240; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d
89; Matter of Johnson v Cole, 287 AD2d 632). The Supreme Court's determination
that the best interests of the child would be served by awarding custody to the
defendant has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v
Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; cf. Matter of Chebuske v Burnhard-Vogt, 284 AD2d 456).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, neither party sought joint
custody. In any event, joint custody is inappropriate in this case because
"the parties have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to cooperate
in making decisions on matters relating to the care and welfare" of their
child (Forzano v Scuderi, 224 AD2d 385, 386; see also Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d 995;
Tesler v Tesler, 228 AD2d 491).
The appellant's remaining contentions are either without merit or not
properly before this Court.
O'Brien, J.P., Luciano, [***3] Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.