green
Positive treatment
Issue: witnesses after an evidentiary hearingNY ↗
Issue: Mother challengeNY ↗
Issue: discretion factorsNY ↗
37.1 score
G Cite
cited 8× by 8 distinct cases, 2011–2022↓ Fading ·
…generally, a court's determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the reco…
at p. 1744
✓
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2011–2016↓ Fading ·
…a court's determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record
at p. 1744
✓
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Brenda L. M. v. James R. K.
"Generally, a court's determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record" ( Matter of Krug v Krug , 55 AD3d 1373 , 1374 [4th Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Hernandez v McGowan , 246 AD3d 1482 , 1483 [4th Dept 2026]; Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller , 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Mea V. (Brandon V.)
We exercise our discretion to treat the mother's notice of appeal from the fact-finding order in appeal No. 1 as a valid notice of appeal from the order of disposition pertaining to her in appeal No. 3 ( see generally CPLR 5520 [c]; Matter of Threet v Threet , 79 AD3d 1743, 1743 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Kayla K. (Emma P.-T.)
As a preliminary matter, we exercise our discretion to treat the stepmother's notice of appeal as valid and deem the appeal to be taken from the orders of protection entered as a result of that order, inasmuch as the orders of protection constitute the orders of disposition pursuant to Family Court Act § 1052 (a) (iv) ( see generally CPLR 5520 [c]; Matter of Threet v Threet , 79 AD3d 1743, 1743 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Gibbardo v. Ramos
It is well settled that "a court's determination regarding . . . visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record, i.e., is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record" ( Matter of Rulinsky v West , 107 AD3d 1507 , 1509 [4th Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Ordona v Cothern , 126 AD3d 1544, 1545 [4th Dept 2015]; Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller , 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [4th Dept 2010…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
CHYRECK, DONIELLE L. v. SWIFT, JOSEPH R.
The court’s “first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing ... is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record” (Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re the Adoption of Haly S.W.
In any event, the record is sufficient to permit us to make our own findings (see Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]), and we conclude that the court’s determination that adoption by petitioners is in the child’s best interests is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Sjuqwan Anthony Zion Perry M. [Charnise Antonia M.], 111 AD3d 473 , 474 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 864 [2014]; see generally Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guillermo v. Agramonte
It is well settled that “a court’s determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a firsthand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record” (Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]; see Matter of Green v Bontzolakes, 83 AD3d 1401, 1402 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guillermo v. Agramonte
It is well settled that “a court’s determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a firsthand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record” (Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]; see Matter of Green v Bontzolakes, 83 AD3d 1401, 1402 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SAUNDERS, BRANDON P. v. STULL, JENNIFER M.
Contrary to the mother’s further contentions, the court properly determined that an award of sole custody to the father was in the child’s best interests. “ ‘Generally, a court’s determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record’ ” (Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
WARREN, KATHERINE D. v. MILLER, CHRISTOPHER J.
“Generally a court’s determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based on its first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record” (Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Marino v Marino, 90 AD3d 1694, 1695 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Gandy
We see no basis to disturb the court’s determination that the North Tonawanda location would better serve the child’s best interests, “ ‘inasmuch as it was based on the court’s credibility assessments of the witnesses and is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Gandy
We see no basis to disturb the court’s determination that the North Tonawanda location would better serve the child’s best interests, “ ‘inasmuch as it was based on the court’s credibility assessments of the witnesses and is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Van Court v. Wadsworth
(2×)
“Inasmuch as the mother does not challenge Family Court’s finding that a change in circumstances existed, we need only address whether it was in the child[ren]’s best interests to award sole custody to the father” (Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
VAN COURT, II, WILLIAM v. WADSWORTH, NICOLE
We see no basis to disturb the court’s determination inasmuch as it was based on the court’s credibility assessments of the witnesses and is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Dubuque, 79 AD3d at 1744 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Van Court v. Wadsworth
(2×)
“Inasmuch as the mother does not challenge Family Court’s finding that a change in circumstances existed, we need only address whether it was in the child[ren]’s best interests to award sole custody to the father” (Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
WILLIAMS, KEITH v. v. WILLIAMS, TAWNY B.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Here, we -2- 913 CA 11-02308 see no reason to disturb the court’s custody determination inasmuch as it is supported by the requisite “sound and substantial basis in the record” (Dubuque, 79 AD3d at 1744 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Williams
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Here, we see no reason to disturb the court’s custody determination inasmuch as it is supported by the requisite “sound and substantial basis in the record” {Dubuque, 79 AD3d at 1744 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Williams
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Here, we see no reason to disturb the court’s custody determination inasmuch as it is supported by the requisite “sound and substantial basis in the record” {Dubuque, 79 AD3d at 1744 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
FLINT, MELISSA A. v. ELY, ANDREW L.
The parties agreed that a change in circumstances was created by virtue of the fact that the child had reached the age where he was attending school, rendering the existing shared physical custody arrangement impractical, and thus we need only address whether it was in the child’s best interests to award pri *1682 mary physical custody to the father (see Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stilson v. Stilson
Moreover, contrary to the mother’s further contention, the court properly determined that it was in the child’s best interests to award the father primary physical custody of the child. “ ‘Generally, a court’s determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record’ ” (Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fox v. Coleman
To the extent that the mother contends that the court’s determination is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, we reject that contention. “ ‘Generally, a court’s determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record’ ” (Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marino v. Marino
In addition, “ ‘a court’s determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record’ ” (Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]; see Matter of Green v Bontzolakes, 83 AD3d 1401 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Riley v. Kidney
(2×)
We reject the mother's further contention that the court erred in granting the father sole custody of the subject child. "[A] court's determination regarding custody . . . issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight" ( Matter of Saunders v Stull , 133 AD3d 1383, 1383 [4th Dept 2015]; see Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller , 79 AD3d 1743 , 1744 [4th Dept 2010]) and "will not be disturbed as long as it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record" ( Sheridan v Sheridan , 129 AD3d 1567, 1568 [4t…
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Clark v. Clark
In making such a determination, the court "must consider all factors that could impact the best interests of the child[ren], including the existing custody arrangement, the current home environment, the financial status of the parties, [and] the ability of each parent to provide for the child[ren]'s emotional and intellectual development" ( Matter of Marino v Marino , 90 AD3d 1694, 1695 [4th Dept 2011]). " 'A court's custody determination, including its evaluation of [the children's] best interests, is entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed [as long as] it is supported by a soun…
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Muriel v. Muriel
(2×)
"Generally, a court's determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record" ( Matter of Krug v Krug , 55 AD3d 1373 , 1374 [4th Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller , 79 AD3d 1743 , 1744 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Nevin H. (Stephanie H.)
It is well settled that "a court's determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record" ( Matter of Krug v Krug , 55 AD3d 1373 , 1374 [4th Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Green v Bontzolakes , 83 AD3d 1401, 1402 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]), i.e., it is not " supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record' " ( Krug , 55 AD3d at 1374…
discussed
Cited "see"
Ordona v. Cothern
It is well settled that “a court’s determination regarding . . . visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record, i.e., is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Rulinsky v West, 107 AD3d 1507, 1509 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ordona v. Cothern
It is well settled that “a court’s determination regarding . . . visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record, i.e., is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Rulinsky v West, 107 AD3d 1507, 1509 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
ORDONA, PATRICK v. COTHERN, JENNIFER
It is well settled that “a court’s determination regarding . . . visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record, i.e., is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Rulinsky v West, 107 AD3d 1507 , 1509 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743, 1744 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
HARDER, DANIEL B. v. PHETTEPLACE, NICOLE B.
We see no basis to disturb the [Referee]’s determination inasmuch as it was based on the [Referee]’s credibility assessments of the witnesses and is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Krug v Krug, 55 AD3d 1373, 1374 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Dubuque v Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743 [2010]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Steven Dubuque
v.
Shawna M. Bremiller
v.
Shawna M. Bremiller
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 30, 2010.
Cited by 35 opinions | Published
[*1744] Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Sharon M. LoVallo, J.), entered June 22, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, granted petitioner sole custody of the parties’ child.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that, following a hearing, granted the petition seeking to modify a prior order of custody and visitation by granting sole custody of the parties’ daughter to petitioner father and visitation to the mother. Inasmuch as the mother does not challenge Family Court’s finding that a change in circumstances existed, we need only address whether it was in the child’s best interests to award sole custody to the father (see Matter of Bush v Bush, 74 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 711 [2010]).
We note at the outset “that, although the court failed to comply with CPLR 4213 (b) by stating ‘the facts it deem[ed] essential’ in [awarding sole custody to the father], the record is sufficient to permit us to make such findings” (Matter of Chapman v Tucker, 74 AD3d 1905, 1906 [2010]; see Matter of Vezina v Vezina, 8 AD3d 1047 [2004]). “Contrary to the mother’s contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the father [sole custody of the child]. Generally, a court’s determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record . . . We see no basis to disturb the court’s determination inasmuch as it was based on the court’s credibility assessments of the witnesses and is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Krug v Krug, 55 AD3d 1373, 1374 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Thayer v Thayer, 67 AD3d 1358 [2009]).
We have considered the mother’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Martoche, J.P, Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.