Hotaling v. Hotaling
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Saratoga County (James, J.), entered January 24, 1997, which, inter alia, granted respondent’s application, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for sole custody of the parties’ minor children.
It is well settled that in custody proceedings between two parents, the governing standard is the best interests of the children and is determined by considering the totality of the circumstances, including the quality and stability of the home environment, the ability of each parent to provide for the children’s emotional and intellectual development, the parents’ financial status and general fitness, and the length of time the present custody arrangement has been in effect (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Matter of Salvati v Salvati, 221 AD2d 541, appeal dismissed 87 NY2d 954, lv denied 88 NY2d 803). Naturally, consideration of these factors entails an evaluation of the testimony and character of the parties, and great deference is therefore accorded to Family Court’s determination based upon its superior opportunity to hear the witnesses, observe their demeanor, and judge their credibility and sincerity. Thus, we will disturb Family Court’s determination only where we find it to be without a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Matter of Barndollar v Barndollar, 234 AD2d 858; Matter of Nicotera v Nicotera, 222 AD2d 892; Matter of Hubbard v Hubbard, 221 AD2d 807).
Review of the record in this case discloses that the parties offered radically divergent accounts of their own and each other’s parenting abilities, past performance and over-all fitness as a custodial parent. Resolution of this conflicting testimony required Family Court to make a series of credibility assessments to which we accord substantial deference for the reasons previously stated. Moreover, the record affords ample support for the court’s determination. Petitioner had a consistently
We are likewise reluctant to disturb Family Court’s determination concerning the frequency and duration of the visitation between the children and petitioner, as it appears that the court carefully considered and weighed competing considerations, including the necessity of a rigorous three-hour journey between the parents’ homes.
Cardona, P. J., Her cure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.