Matter of Angel M. v Nereida M.

Matter of Matter of Angel M. v Nereida M. 2012 NY Slip Op 01357 Decided on February 23, 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 February 23, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
6885

[*1]In re Angel M., Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Nereida M., Respondent-Respondent.




Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for appellant.
Yisroel Schulman, New York Legal Assistant Group, New
York, (Christina Brandt-Young of counsel), for respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Sena
Kim-Reuter of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Diane Kiesel, J.), entered on or about September 17, 2009, which, after a hearing, granted a final order of custody to respondent mother, with visitation to petitioner father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court's determination that it was in the best interests of the child to grant custody to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]). The record shows that the father attempted and intended to thwart any relationship between the mother and the child, while the mother was willing to ensure that the father had frequent contact with the child; the mother served as the child's primary caregiver before the father gained de facto custody by refusing to return the child after a weekend visit; the father failed to attend to the child's educational needs and was not involved in the child's upbringing; and the father had abused the mother, sometimes in the presence of the child (see Nimkoff v Nimkoff, 74 AD3d 408, 409 [2010]; Matter of Shayna R., 57 AD3d 262, 263 [2008]). There is [*2]no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations, which are entitled to deference (Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173).

We have considered the father's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

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

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 23, 2012

CLERK