Tavarez v. Musse, 31 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Tavarez v. Musse, 31 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Gorniok v. Zeledon-Mussio (nyappdiv, 2011-03-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gorniok v. Zeledon-Mussio
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
“Since the Family Court’s custody determination is largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Tavarez v Musse, 31 AD3d 458, 458 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Battista v Fasano, 41 AD3d 712, 713 [2007]; Matter of Johnson v Johnson, 309 AD2d 750, 751 [2003]). “[J]oint custody is encouraged primarily as a voluntary alternative for relatively stable, amica…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edwards v. Rothschild (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
However, joint custody is inappropriate “where the parties are antagonistic towards each other and have demonstrated an inability to cooperate on matters concerning the child” (Matter of Timothy M. v Laura A.K., 204 AD2d at 326 ; see Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d 995, 998 [1982]; Braiman, 44 NY2d at 589-590; Matter of Garcia v Scruggs, 44 AD3d 660, 661 [2007]; Matter of McCoy v McCoy, 43 AD3d 469 [2007]; Matter of Fishburne v Teelucksingh, 34 AD3d 804, 805 [2006]; Matter of Tavarez v Musse, 31 AD3d at 458; Matter of Bornholdt v Alfieri, 201 AD2d 560 [1994]).
discussed Cited "see" In re Shamarri W.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
Moreover, upon the exercise of our independent review power (cf CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the Family Court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]; see Matter of Sharard W., 31 AD3d 458 [2006]; Matter of Anthony S., 305 AD2d at 690 ).
discussed Cited "see" Vega v. Afanador
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
“Since the Family Court’s custody determination is largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Plaza v Plaza, 305 AD2d 607 [2003]; see Matter of Tavarez v Musse, 31 AD3d 458 [2006]; Matter of Perez v Montanez, 31 AD3d 565 [2006]; Maloney v Maloney, 208 AD2d 603 [1994]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Jason Tavarez
v.
Samantha Musse
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 5, 2006.
31 A.D.3d 458
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearl, J.), dated April 29, 2005, which, after a hearing, inter alia, awarded sole custody of the subject child to the father.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The essential consideration in a custody determination is to promote the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982]). “Since the Family Court’s custody determination is largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Plaza v Plaza, 305 AD2d 607 [2003]; see Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946, 947 [1985]).

Here, we discern no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination to award custody to the father with visitation rights to the mother—a conclusion supported by the record, as well as by the opinions of the court-appointed forensic evaluator and the Law Guardian (see Galanos v Galanos, 28 AD3d 554 [2006]; Matter of Bowe v Robinson, 23 AD3d 555, 556 [2005]; Matter of Plaza v Plaza, supra; Matter of Solomon v Lee, 302 AD2d 395 [2003]). Contrary to the mother’s contention, joint custody of the child was not a viable option in this case due to the history of animosity between the parties (see Braiman v Braiman, 44 NY2d 584, 587 [1978]; Palumbo v Palumbo, 292 AD2d 358, 360 [2002]).

The mother’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Santucci, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.