Matter of Victoria H. (Tetsuhito A.)

Matter of Victoria H. (Tetsuhito A.) 2013 NY Slip Op 07121 Decided on October 31, 2013 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 October 31, 2013
Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Feinman, Gische, JJ.
10923

[*1]In re Victoria H., Petitioner-Appellant,

and

Tetsuhito A., Respondent-Respondent.




Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, for appellant.
Timothy J. Horgan, New York, for respondent.
Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Shirim
Nothenberg of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about November 27, 2012, which, after a hearing, awarded joint legal custody of the child to the parties, with primary physical custody to petitioner mother, and with liberal visitation to respondent father, including overnight visits every other weekend, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A sound and substantial basis in the record supports the determination that the child's best interests are met by the award of joint legal custody (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-172 [1982]). The court considered the appropriate factors, and determined that the parties had conducted themselves with civility toward one another, reached compromises regarding visitation schedules, and generally set aside personal feelings for the sake of the child (see Juneau v Juneau, 206 AD2d 647 [3d Dept 1994]). Moreover, the record does not reflect that there had been any disputes between the parties over any major issue concerning the child, nor that the parties' relationship was marked by such acrimony or mistrust that joint custody would not be a viable option (compare Lubit v Lubit, 65 AD3d 954 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 716 [2010], cert denied __ US __, 130 SCt 3362 [2010]).

Furthermore, the record does not support the mother's argument that the court's award of [*2]overnight visitation to the father was not in the best interests of the child.

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: OCTOBER 31, 2013

CLERK