68 A.D.3d 864
N.Y. App. Div.
2009

In the Matter of David Garcia, Appellant, v Cindy Becerra, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Cindy Becerra, Respondent, v David Garcia, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Proceeding No. 1; Proceeding No. 2

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

890 NYS2d 625

The primary consideration in any custody dispute is the best interests of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). “Custody determinations depend to a very great extent upon the hearing court‘s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties” (Matter of Brian S. v Stephanie P., 34 AD3d 685, 686 [2006] [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). “Where a hearing court has conducted a complete evidentiary hearing, its finding must be accorded great weight, and its grant of custody will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Venette v Rhodes, 301 AD2d 608, 608 [2003]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173).

The Family Court‘s determination that the best interests of the child would be served by an award of custody to the mother was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 174; Matter of Brian S. v Stephanie P., 34 AD3d at 686).

“When reviewing a custodial parent‘s request to relocate, the court‘s primary focus must be on the best interests of the child” (Matter of Giraldo v Gomez, 49 AD3d 645, 645 [2008]; see Matter of Said v Said, 61 AD3d 879, 881 [2009]). The Family Court, upon weighing the appropriate factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea (87 NY2d 727, 740-741 [1996]), properly determined that relocation was in the child‘s best interests.

The father‘s remaining contentions are without merit.

Mastro, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.