Matter of Ricardo S. v Carron C.

Matter of Matter of Ricardo S. v Carron C. 2012 NY Slip Op 00463 Decided on January 26, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 26, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Acosta, Román, JJ.
6621

[*1]In re Ricardo S., Petitioner-Respondent,

v

Carron C., Respondent-Appellant.




Carol Kahn, New York, for appellant.
Virginia Geiss, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Hal
Silverman of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Diane Costanzo, Referee), entered on or about February 4, 2011, which, inter alia, awarded petitioner father custody of the subject child with liberal visitation to respondent mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

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 __ 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 [*2]be the child's preferred living arrangement (see e.g. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 173).

We have considered the mother's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 26, 2012

CLERK